Canon M6 II with kits lens or Body only + buy a lens? Locked

I'm looking to upgrade from a Canon G7X II which was my first camera that got me into photography.

I want something to step up to and the M6 II seems to tick a lot of the boxes - I know it is three years old but still looks a good camera and something newer like the R7 is a little too big of a leap for me price wise.

My main question is whether people think the M6II kit with the 15-45 lens and EVF for around £1050 is a good deal and an acceptable lens for that package? Or whether the 15-45mm lens should be skipped, and I should go for body only and buy a lens separately? That would mean not having the EVF too though. My main uses are family and travel photography.

What do people think?

At that price the lens is basically free and you’re paying for the EVF, which I would want. Almost the same price as buying the body and EVF separately.

I’d stretch if you can and find an 18-150 kit though. Reviews are better. It’s what my wife has and we have no complaints. Better range overall and better quality where they overlap. Still cheaper than R7 body only.

I bought the M6 II kit (body, 15-45, EVF).  I was not particularly interested in the 15-45 but I needed the EVF.  I would have chosen the kit w/the 18-150 except I already own a good copy of the 18-150.  If you don't need a lens try to locate the EVF for a good price and order the body only; otherwise, get the kit.  Look closely at the 18-150, especially if that kit is offered for a good price.

Thanks. I'm not seeing anywhere in the UK at the moment that does the kit with the EVF and 18-150mm lens. I'll keep looking.

borris14 wrote:

I'm looking to upgrade from a Canon G7X II which was my first camera that got me into photography.

I want something to step up to and the M6 II seems to tick a lot of the boxes - I know it is three years old but still looks a good camera and something newer like the R7 is a little too big of a leap for me price wise.

My main question is whether people think the M6II kit with the 15-45 lens and EVF for around £1050 is a good deal and an acceptable lens for that package? Or whether the 15-45mm lens should be skipped, and I should go for body only and buy a lens separately? That would mean not having the EVF too though. My main uses are family and travel photography.

What do people think?

I'll go against the grain a bit.  (If you get a good copy of the 15-45) it'll give you a 24-70mm equiv lens, which with the M6ii's higher MP and much better image quality (over the G7X ii), with some cropping you'll easily get out to the G7X ii's 100mm equiv zoom.  So no loss there.  The 15-45 is so nice and light too.

The 18-150 is indeed an excellent travel lens, but you do gain some size and lose some off the wide angle end.  The extra reach is very nice when needed tho.

There are also a good number of more specialized prime lenses (Canon and 3rd party) that perform beautifully if you are looking to focus on more specific types of photography (portrait, macro, sports, etc).

I'll include a link to the M6ii Tips & Tricks thread to help get things set up...

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4433968

Good luck with your decision!

R2

borris14 wrote:

I'm looking to upgrade from a Canon G7X II which was my first camera that got me into photography.

I want something to step up to and the M6 II seems to tick a lot of the boxes - I know it is three years old but still looks a good camera and something newer like the R7 is a little too big of a leap for me price wise.

My main question is whether people think the M6II kit with the 15-45 lens and EVF for around £1050 is a good deal and an acceptable lens for that package? Or whether the 15-45mm lens should be skipped, and I should go for body only and buy a lens separately? That would mean not having the EVF too though. My main uses are family and travel photography.

What do people think?

£1050 seems a little steep.

Body only available for £749 and kit for

https://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/canon-eos-m6-mark-ii-body-only

and kit for £1009 so already saved you £41

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-eos-m6-ii-digital-camera-with-15-45mm-is-stm-lens-1713363/?sv_campaign_id=24658&sv_tax1=affiliate&sv_tax3=Camerapricebuster&sv_tax4=0&sv_affiliate_id=24658&awc=2298_1658676251_edbb7f2225734869cba7f9ca43017737&utm_source=aw

You could add an excellent or like new condition used EFV for £149 / £154

https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Canon/Canon-EOS-M-System-Accessories/Canon-EVF-DC2-Electronic-Viewfinder

A good copy of the 15-45 is OK and is nice that it is wider at the wide end than most - but dont reckon to pay more than £50 for it.

https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Canon/Canon-EOS-M-System-Lenses/Canon-EF-M-15-45mm-f3.5-6.3-IS-STM-Lens

borris14 wrote:

I'm looking to upgrade from a Canon G7X II which was my first camera that got me into photography.

I want something to step up to and the M6 II seems to tick a lot of the boxes - I know it is three years old but still looks a good camera and something newer like the R7 is a little too big of a leap for me price wise.

My main question is whether people think the M6II kit with the 15-45 lens and EVF for around £1050 is a good deal and an acceptable lens for that package? Or whether the 15-45mm lens should be skipped, and I should go for body only and buy a lens separately? That would mean not having the EVF too though. My main uses are family and travel photography.

What do people think?

Other option - R10. Looks a cracking little camera

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDmzRQWt6eM

I was looking at the R10 and wasn't sure where it sits vs the M6 II. I know the R10 is new but wasn't sure if it was aimed at the entry level market, e.g to 'replace' the M50. Whereas the M6 II is a more capable camera, albeit three years older, and I had thought the R7 would be the next step up but from this, but that's out of my budget range.

borris14 wrote:

I was looking at the R10 and wasn't sure where it sits vs the M6 II. I know the R10 is new but wasn't sure if it was aimed at the entry level market, e.g to 'replace' the M50. Whereas the M6 II is a more capable camera, albeit three years older, and I had thought the R7 would be the next step up but from this, but that's out of my budget range.

what type of photography do you want to do?

what is the budget for lenses?

Canon EOS R10 Mirrorless Camera with 18-150mm Lens 5331C016 B&H (bhphotovideo.com)

even the R10 + kit lens is $1379

photography is expensive, but knowing the type of photography you want to do and the budget will help guide the forum in a recommendation

borris14 wrote:

I'm looking to upgrade from a Canon G7X II which was my first camera that got me into photography.

I want something to step up to and the M6 II seems to tick a lot of the boxes - I know it is three years old but still looks a good camera and something newer like the R7 is a little too big of a leap for me price wise.

My main question is whether people think the M6II kit with the 15-45 lens and EVF for around £1050 is a good deal and an acceptable lens for that package? Or whether the 15-45mm lens should be skipped, and I should go for body only and buy a lens separately? That would mean not having the EVF too though. My main uses are family and travel photography.

What do people think?

Are you set on the M6II? The M50II is significantly cheaper and has a built-in EVF. For the price difference (especially if you would also want the add-on EVF for the M6II) you could pick up a prime lens or two or the 18-150. That would be better for your photography than limiting yourself to the 15-45 with the M6II.

Also, this has been alluded to already, but RF mount or other brands have a better future outlook than EOS M. Though I personally wouldn't buy an R7 or R10 until they release more crop lenses. EOS M is a fine choice as long as you are satisfied with the currently available lenses.

nnowak wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

borris14 wrote:

I'm looking to upgrade from a Canon G7X II which was my first camera that got me into photography.

I want something to step up to and the M6 II seems to tick a lot of the boxes - I know it is three years old but still looks a good camera and something newer like the R7 is a little too big of a leap for me price wise.

My main question is whether people think the M6II kit with the 15-45 lens and EVF for around £1050 is a good deal and an acceptable lens for that package? Or whether the 15-45mm lens should be skipped, and I should go for body only and buy a lens separately? That would mean not having the EVF too though. My main uses are family and travel photography.

What do people think?

I'll go against the grain a bit. (If you get a good copy of the 15-45) it'll give you a 24-70mm equiv lens, which with the M6ii's higher MP and much better image quality (over the G7X ii), with some cropping you'll easily get out to the G7X ii's 100mm equiv zoom. So no loss there. The 15-45 is so nice and light too.

Cropping to get a 100mm equivalent view drops the M6 II all of the way down to 16.7 megapixels on a sensor area smaller than micro 4/3.

The G7X II has a much brighter f/1.8-2.8 lens than the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3. In full frame equivalence, the G7X II is a 24-100mm f/5.0-8.0. The EF-M 15-45mm has a full frame equivalence of 24-70mm f/5.6-10. Cropping to a 100mm equivalent puts you at f/14 equivalent.

Yes, the M6 II sensor is much better than the G7X II sensor, but the slow apertures of the 15-45mm neuters much of that advantage. Cropping only exasperates the situation.

Concerning the amount of light: A f/1.8-2.8 lens always remains a bright lens, also compared to FF. The equivalent of f/5.0-8.0 can only refer to the optical impression (DOF). The same goes with the 15-45mm lens.

Concerning the megapixels: I have taken more than 90% of my shots (with my M6 in 4,5 years) with reduced resolution (ca. 11 MP) instead of 24 MP. Since I do almost no cropping, this is more than enough for me. To my mind, the influence of more megapixels is exaggerated, if one does not need cropping.

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

borris14 wrote:

I'm looking to upgrade from a Canon G7X II which was my first camera that got me into photography.

I want something to step up to and the M6 II seems to tick a lot of the boxes - I know it is three years old but still looks a good camera and something newer like the R7 is a little too big of a leap for me price wise.

My main question is whether people think the M6II kit with the 15-45 lens and EVF for around £1050 is a good deal and an acceptable lens for that package? Or whether the 15-45mm lens should be skipped, and I should go for body only and buy a lens separately? That would mean not having the EVF too though. My main uses are family and travel photography.

What do people think?

I'll go against the grain a bit. (If you get a good copy of the 15-45) it'll give you a 24-70mm equiv lens, which with the M6ii's higher MP and much better image quality (over the G7X ii), with some cropping you'll easily get out to the G7X ii's 100mm equiv zoom. So no loss there. The 15-45 is so nice and light too.

Cropping to get a 100mm equivalent view drops the M6 II all of the way down to 16.7 megapixels on a sensor area smaller than micro 4/3.

The G7X II has a much brighter f/1.8-2.8 lens than the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3. In full frame equivalence, the G7X II is a 24-100mm f/5.0-8.0. The EF-M 15-45mm has a full frame equivalence of 24-70mm f/5.6-10. Cropping to a 100mm equivalent puts you at f/14 equivalent.

Yes, the M6 II sensor is much better than the G7X II sensor, but the slow apertures of the 15-45mm neuters much of that advantage. Cropping only exasperates the situation.

Concerning the amount of light: A f/1.8-2.8 lens always remains a bright lens, also compared to FF. The equivalent of f/5.0-8.0 can only refer to the optical impression (DOF). The same goes with the 15-45mm lens.

That's simply not true. If it were, everyone would be shooting on tiny sensors with "bright" lenses. I suggest you read the whole article below.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

nnowak wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

borris14 wrote:

I'm looking to upgrade from a Canon G7X II which was my first camera that got me into photography.

I want something to step up to and the M6 II seems to tick a lot of the boxes - I know it is three years old but still looks a good camera and something newer like the R7 is a little too big of a leap for me price wise.

My main question is whether people think the M6II kit with the 15-45 lens and EVF for around £1050 is a good deal and an acceptable lens for that package? Or whether the 15-45mm lens should be skipped, and I should go for body only and buy a lens separately? That would mean not having the EVF too though. My main uses are family and travel photography.

What do people think?

I'll go against the grain a bit. (If you get a good copy of the 15-45) it'll give you a 24-70mm equiv lens, which with the M6ii's higher MP and much better image quality (over the G7X ii), with some cropping you'll easily get out to the G7X ii's 100mm equiv zoom. So no loss there. The 15-45 is so nice and light too.

Cropping to get a 100mm equivalent view drops the M6 II all of the way down to 16.7 megapixels on a sensor area smaller than micro 4/3.

The G7X II has a much brighter f/1.8-2.8 lens than the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3. In full frame equivalence, the G7X II is a 24-100mm f/5.0-8.0. The EF-M 15-45mm has a full frame equivalence of 24-70mm f/5.6-10. Cropping to a 100mm equivalent puts you at f/14 equivalent.

Yes, the M6 II sensor is much better than the G7X II sensor, but the slow apertures of the 15-45mm neuters much of that advantage. Cropping only exasperates the situation.

You can spout equivalence all you want nnowak, but I've shot many tens of thousands of pics with 1" sensor cameras, and the M6ii outperforms them significantly shooting just about anything (even at base ISO).  Heck, M43 (even at 20 MP) loses any reach advantage too vs the M6ii IMO.

If you think the OP should stick with the G7X ii vs getting the M6ii + Kit Lens, well that's your choice here.  But my advice is just the opposite.

R2

dan the man p wrote:

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

borris14 wrote:

I'm looking to upgrade from a Canon G7X II which was my first camera that got me into photography.

I want something to step up to and the M6 II seems to tick a lot of the boxes - I know it is three years old but still looks a good camera and something newer like the R7 is a little too big of a leap for me price wise.

My main question is whether people think the M6II kit with the 15-45 lens and EVF for around £1050 is a good deal and an acceptable lens for that package? Or whether the 15-45mm lens should be skipped, and I should go for body only and buy a lens separately? That would mean not having the EVF too though. My main uses are family and travel photography.

What do people think?

I'll go against the grain a bit. (If you get a good copy of the 15-45) it'll give you a 24-70mm equiv lens, which with the M6ii's higher MP and much better image quality (over the G7X ii), with some cropping you'll easily get out to the G7X ii's 100mm equiv zoom. So no loss there. The 15-45 is so nice and light too.

Cropping to get a 100mm equivalent view drops the M6 II all of the way down to 16.7 megapixels on a sensor area smaller than micro 4/3.

The G7X II has a much brighter f/1.8-2.8 lens than the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3. In full frame equivalence, the G7X II is a 24-100mm f/5.0-8.0. The EF-M 15-45mm has a full frame equivalence of 24-70mm f/5.6-10. Cropping to a 100mm equivalent puts you at f/14 equivalent.

Yes, the M6 II sensor is much better than the G7X II sensor, but the slow apertures of the 15-45mm neuters much of that advantage. Cropping only exasperates the situation.

Concerning the amount of light: A f/1.8-2.8 lens always remains a bright lens, also compared to FF. The equivalent of f/5.0-8.0 can only refer to the optical impression (DOF). The same goes with the 15-45mm lens.

That's simply not true. If it were, everyone would be shooting on tiny sensors with "bright" lenses. I suggest you read the whole article below.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

As fas as I understand, a f/2,0 lens gathers the same amount of light per unit area of the sensor, independent of its size. So a lens with f/2.0 for a 1''-sensor needs the same settings for exposure as a f/2.0-lens for FF. Or am I wrong here?

rz64 wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

borris14 wrote:

I'm looking to upgrade from a Canon G7X II which was my first camera that got me into photography.

I want something to step up to and the M6 II seems to tick a lot of the boxes - I know it is three years old but still looks a good camera and something newer like the R7 is a little too big of a leap for me price wise.

My main question is whether people think the M6II kit with the 15-45 lens and EVF for around £1050 is a good deal and an acceptable lens for that package? Or whether the 15-45mm lens should be skipped, and I should go for body only and buy a lens separately? That would mean not having the EVF too though. My main uses are family and travel photography.

What do people think?

I'll go against the grain a bit. (If you get a good copy of the 15-45) it'll give you a 24-70mm equiv lens, which with the M6ii's higher MP and much better image quality (over the G7X ii), with some cropping you'll easily get out to the G7X ii's 100mm equiv zoom. So no loss there. The 15-45 is so nice and light too.

Cropping to get a 100mm equivalent view drops the M6 II all of the way down to 16.7 megapixels on a sensor area smaller than micro 4/3.

The G7X II has a much brighter f/1.8-2.8 lens than the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3. In full frame equivalence, the G7X II is a 24-100mm f/5.0-8.0. The EF-M 15-45mm has a full frame equivalence of 24-70mm f/5.6-10. Cropping to a 100mm equivalent puts you at f/14 equivalent.

Yes, the M6 II sensor is much better than the G7X II sensor, but the slow apertures of the 15-45mm neuters much of that advantage. Cropping only exasperates the situation.

Concerning the amount of light: A f/1.8-2.8 lens always remains a bright lens, also compared to FF. The equivalent of f/5.0-8.0 can only refer to the optical impression (DOF). The same goes with the 15-45mm lens.

That's simply not true. If it were, everyone would be shooting on tiny sensors with "bright" lenses. I suggest you read the whole article below.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

As fas as I understand, a f/2,0 lens gathers the same amount of light per unit area of the sensor, independent of its size. So a lens with f/2.0 for a 1''-sensor needs the same settings for exposure as a f/2.0-lens for FF. Or am I wrong here?

Yes, you're right. So if you are shooting f/2.0 on a G7x and f/4 on full frame with the same shutter speed, you'll need higher ISO on the full frame to get the same exposure. But full frame can deal with the high ISO much better. So in every way that matters to the end result (DOF, noise, detail, dynamic range, etc.), equivalent F-number is much more meaningful than actual F-number when comparing lenses across sensor sizes. There's no magic benefit obtained by using a tiny sensor with a lens with a bright F-number. The article explains this all in detail with examples.

The type of photography is mostly family and travel related. Capturing moments together with the family and out and about on trips/travel.

I've enjoyed photography since getting my G7X II six years ago, and I now feel I want to 'step up' to a more advanced camera, where i I can use different lenses and develop my photography as a hobby. But something that is not too big. I don't want a pocket camera but I don't want to be weighed down either.

The M6 II seems to tick a lot of the boxes, but I'm also aware of the R10 coming out but haven't seen any detailed review of it, and I'm not clear whether it is at the same level as the M6 II, Not an expert on these sort of things!

Budget wise: Happy to spend around £1000-1200-ish first of all for the camera and kit/first lens. I can buy additional lens over time.

dan the man p wrote:

rz64 wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

borris14 wrote:

I'm looking to upgrade from a Canon G7X II which was my first camera that got me into photography.

I want something to step up to and the M6 II seems to tick a lot of the boxes - I know it is three years old but still looks a good camera and something newer like the R7 is a little too big of a leap for me price wise.

My main question is whether people think the M6II kit with the 15-45 lens and EVF for around £1050 is a good deal and an acceptable lens for that package? Or whether the 15-45mm lens should be skipped, and I should go for body only and buy a lens separately? That would mean not having the EVF too though. My main uses are family and travel photography.

What do people think?

I'll go against the grain a bit. (If you get a good copy of the 15-45) it'll give you a 24-70mm equiv lens, which with the M6ii's higher MP and much better image quality (over the G7X ii), with some cropping you'll easily get out to the G7X ii's 100mm equiv zoom. So no loss there. The 15-45 is so nice and light too.

Cropping to get a 100mm equivalent view drops the M6 II all of the way down to 16.7 megapixels on a sensor area smaller than micro 4/3.

The G7X II has a much brighter f/1.8-2.8 lens than the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3. In full frame equivalence, the G7X II is a 24-100mm f/5.0-8.0. The EF-M 15-45mm has a full frame equivalence of 24-70mm f/5.6-10. Cropping to a 100mm equivalent puts you at f/14 equivalent.

Yes, the M6 II sensor is much better than the G7X II sensor, but the slow apertures of the 15-45mm neuters much of that advantage. Cropping only exasperates the situation.

Concerning the amount of light: A f/1.8-2.8 lens always remains a bright lens, also compared to FF. The equivalent of f/5.0-8.0 can only refer to the optical impression (DOF). The same goes with the 15-45mm lens.

That's simply not true. If it were, everyone would be shooting on tiny sensors with "bright" lenses. I suggest you read the whole article below.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

As fas as I understand, a f/2,0 lens gathers the same amount of light per unit area of the sensor, independent of its size. So a lens with f/2.0 for a 1''-sensor needs the same settings for exposure as a f/2.0-lens for FF. Or am I wrong here?

Yes, you're right. So if you are shooting f/2.0 on a G7x and f/4 on full frame with the same shutter speed, you'll need higher ISO on the full frame to get the same exposure. But full frame can deal with the high ISO much better. So in every way that matters to the end result (DOF, noise, detail, dynamic range, etc.), equivalent F-number is much more meaningful than actual F-number when comparing lenses across sensor sizes. There's no magic benefit obtained by using a tiny sensor with a lens with a bright F-number. The article explains this all in detail with examples.

Thanks.

But f/1.8 remains a "bright" lens, if you just look at the exposure.

By the relation of sensor sizes (crop factor) you can always convert the FL and the DOF (optical impression). Of course, FF can better deal with high ISO, but APS-C is to my mind a kind of "sweet spot". You can still keep lenses small, but if you take "bright" lenses, you can get a pleasant DOF. FF sometimes offers you a DOF, you probably won't need.

My comment was a reply to the contribution of nnowak. To my mind, he sometimes tells us - as a strong R-supporter - only "one half of the truth".