Thanks. These extra differences pointed out are actually really helpful.
As mentioned, there are probably even more that I have mentioned.
It's actually making me think about whether I should just stick with my M6 Mark II. The smaller size is ideal as travel is the priority for this camera.
I think that many people over state the "size difference" between, say, M6 ii and R10. The single biggest difference in dimensions is the depth (front to back), and most of that difference is due to the deeper grip on R10. Noting that this depth is measured without a lens, this means that practically, most of the difference disappears once you fit a lens bigger than a EF-M 22mm.
M6 ii - 120 x 70 x 49mm & 361g
R10 - 122 x 88 x 83 & 429g
R50 - 116 x 86 x 69 & 375g
So, the EVF hump on R10 makes it 18mm taller than M6 ii, but if the optional add-on EVF is used, M6 ii is taller. In real practical terms, this small 18mm difference is only going to be noticed if you are trying to jam the camera (with a tiny lens) into a coat pocket (or ladies handbag). Almost any carried camera bag will be the same size for either camera.
R10 is 34mm deeper, which is significant, but as mentioned most of this is due to the grip, and even with the basic zoom kit lenses fitted to either camera, the grip depth difference effectively disappears (because the lens sticks out further than the grip. Again, it would make a difference if the camera was to be jammed into a coat pocket with a tiny lens, but the space in a bag that they would take up is almost the same.
R10 is 68g heavier than M6 ii, which is probably enough for many to notice the difference if they were comparing side by side. But in reality for day to day use, the 68g really isn't noticeable (unless you have it in your pocket).
And R50 compared to R10 is an even smaller difference. IMO the ONLY reason to buy R50 would be a restricted budget, or a high degree of certainty that the additional features listed above for R10 would never be used. I think that the long list of differences are probably missed by most R50 buyers because I think that there are certainly some quite serious omissions for anyone serious about photography or wanting to grow into the camera/system.
As regards the differences between M6 ii and R10, I think that R10 outperforms it is most respects including AF, tracking, subject detection, frame rate, responsiveness, and several other features found in Digic X. The M6 ii has a few things that some value - size & weight (assuming you don't use extra EVF or larger lenses - if you use larger lenses the compactness benefit disappears and at some point the small size & grip becomes a disadvantage), 32Mp has more room for cropping than 24Mp, and for a small minority who prefer the tilt LCD to the flippy LCD. Otherwise I think that R10 is a better and more rounded camera, and significantly better than R50.
I'm so used to all the extra controls on that body that are lost on the R50. And the smaller lenses really contribute here as well.
Agreed. As mentione dabove, for anyone using M6 ii almost exclusively with small primes like 22mm, the M6 ii certainly wins on compactness. Once the primes get a bit (and not much) bigger, even Sigma 32mm size, the compactness of the body all but vanishes. The RF-S 18-150 is essentially exactly the same dimensions as EF-M 18-150 except for the larger mount ring, and with these lenses mounted respectively, the differences in size & weight is negligible.
It seems like I generally lose a bit on image quality going to the 24mpx APS-C Canon R models as well.
I don't think so. The new 24Mp sensor is pretty good. You do lose some ability to crop (about 15%) but that is all.
High ISO looks better on the M6 Mark II than the R50.
Again, I am not so sure.
It seems like it further gets worse too comparing the kit lenses with the f/3.5 vs f/4.5 starting points, let alone the 22mm f/2 not having a RF-S equivalent.
I have started using DxO to process RAW images, and between it and the 24Mp sensors of both R10 & R8, I am seriously impressed with the abilities at higher ISO. I usually have my RF 100-400 mounted on R10, and often at 400mm which is f8 with up to ISO 6400 and getting quite clean images.
Here is an example of the same image just converted in DxO and with it processed in DxO with lens corrections & Deep prime NR turned on.
Best to view Original size and zoom in, especially on the less detailed areas where the noise difference is quite pronounced.
So the point is that I have not found the slower lens nearly as big a drawback as I though it might be. I kept my excellent EF 100-400L ii and bought an adapter, but I have never actually used it since getting the RF 100-400. Lugging the extra 1.2kg around is a far bigger downside than shooting at 1 stop faster ISO.
Effectively out of camera
Same as above with corrections and NR turned on.
I would imagine that several third party makers are working on a range of RF-S lenses, as they did with EF-S and EF-M, so while Canon might not have anything, I am sure that others will be forthcoming.
The only thing I really like on the R bodies is the integrated EVF. I really wish that was the case on the M6 Mark II.
I ditched my first M body (M3) because of the lack of EVF - I need glasses to read but not for anything else, so having to keep taking glasses on and off was painful. I also live in (sunny) Australia where using the LCD outdoors can be difficult.
