Here are a couple of Canon EOS M6 Mark II reviews

Aregal

I'm New Here
Oct 3, 2018
14
4
RF lenses would not be exactly useless. Of course, it's a bit pointless to mount a 24-70 RF on M body but a 100-400 would be nice to be used with APS-C sensors which are still a lot more pixel-dense and cheaper.
Sony done it much better in my opinion. Buy a 200-600 and use it on a cheap A6000 if you want or buy a more expensive full frame for it, or both.
I believe Canon filed a patent for a SoeedBooster-like adapter. It would be plausible for them to create an M to RF adapter to “bridge” the gap. This would enable M users to transition to RF bodies but also keep the M lenses at a disadvantage compared to a native RF lense. The similar approach could be seen with the EF to RF adapters. They had to be more creative with the EF to RF to compel users to make the switch. It worked on me; control ring.
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
227
188
I believe Canon filed a patent for a SoeedBooster-like adapter. It would be plausible for them to create an M to RF adapter to “bridge” the gap. This would enable M users to transition to RF bodies but also keep the M lenses at a disadvantage compared to a native RF lense. The similar approach could be seen with the EF to RF adapters. They had to be more creative with the EF to RF to compel users to make the switch. It worked on me; control ring.
The control ring is a great idea. And the drop-in filter adapter too. I would buy EF lenses only to be able to use that adapter and have one ND filter for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,505
392
UK
www.flickr.com
No doubt the M6 II is a very decent camera and very compact. Sales seem to be pretty good. My doubts are with the sustainability of the M line longer term. Canon is in a much tougher situation now and will have to make some decisions on what it keeps investing in. Supporting three mounts is potentially not sustainable in a falling market. They are pining their future on the R mount and the EF has a large existing customer base. Close to the M size could be achieved with an R mount.Just like the 1DX III may the high point of EF the M 6 II might be the high point of the M series.
I'm no expert on any of this, but it seems to me that the M line is aimed at casual users who value small size more than anything else. They sell well, by all accounts, and we know that APS-C vastly outsells FF (mainly due to price?). They might be able to make an APS-C R-mount *body* smaller, but the lenses won't be as small. If they introduced APS-C R-mount lenses, that would be essentially a new line of lenses (like EF-S was), which isn't simplifying anything.

I think a lot of people on these forums make a couple of key mistakes when analysing all this - that offering fewer lines/having a simpler, more easy to understand lineup is better for business, and that an upgrade path from APS-C to FF is important to more than a small minority of customers. I don't think the evidence is there for either assertion, and judging by Canon's strategy so far, the opposite is probably true.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,901
1,033
119
I'm no expert on any of this, but it seems to me that the M line is aimed at casual users who value small size more than anything else.
I'd change that to casual uses rather than casual users, a small difference but I wouldn't class myself as a casual user but do take my M5 for casual use. But then I don't suppose people like us account for the majority of the market anyway...
 

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,285
193
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
Always great to dream, but I seriously doubt Canon would put IBIS in an M5ii body. Not only is the space too small, the LP-E17 would not be able to handle the power demands.

Having said that, I definitely would like an M5ii.
The size and power consumption of IBIS depends on the requirements. If it is 3 stops "only" it doesn't have to travel that far and IMO the size of APS-C makes it 2 times lighter at least (sensor area) and maybe 3 times lighter because things can made thinner. And this affects the size of the actors too because they have to move less mass compared to a FF sensor.
As camera maker I would never introduce a new feature in a workhorse camera first but in some solid prosumer camera if not in an advanced consumer camera: Expectations are lower so if it doesn't work 100% it would be fine (quality and price wise).
But that's just my 2 ct. and yes, I am dreaming about a camera which is as good as M50 with some tweeks especially IBIS, 4k and more direct controls (while the M50 was IMO an experiment by Canon)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joaquim

juststeve

EOS M50
Nov 29, 2018
26
33
I have been impressed by the M6 ii, too, but I want the built in EVF. It simply suits me better. I would hope it would retain the twisty lcd of the M6 ii as it has proven valuable to me on my R.

I wonder if there could be an M1 coming, perhaps instead of a M5 ii. This could be a camera slightly larger, with IBIS, with top-notch video, fancier EVF, with the LP E6N and more for crop sensor use with the longer EF lenses. With a bit larger body there would be more cooling for the more advanced features and better handling with larger lenses, say a 100-400 or even better, a 600/4.
 

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
1,093
270
I'm no expert on any of this, but it seems to me that the M line is aimed at casual users who value small size more than anything else. They sell well, by all accounts, and we know that APS-C vastly outsells FF (mainly due to price?). They might be able to make an APS-C R-mount *body* smaller, but the lenses won't be as small. If they introduced APS-C R-mount lenses, that would be essentially a new line of lenses (like EF-S was), which isn't simplifying anything.

I think a lot of people on these forums make a couple of key mistakes when analysing all this - that offering fewer lines/having a simpler, more easy to understand lineup is better for business, and that an upgrade path from APS-C to FF is important to more than a small minority of customers. I don't think the evidence is there for either assertion, and judging by Canon's strategy so far, the opposite is probably true.
Thanks for your well considered comments. It’s really hard to be sure of anything without knowing the margins on the products. Canon can be more efficient at higher volumes but at this point their energies are split a number of ways. All we know is their profits are way down . I’m not sure which category is dragging down the most. Canon will sell more with more variety of cameras but it pushes up costs. There is an optimal trade off point. I’m sure Canon know what they are doing but it’s not been a good year financially. It’s hard to see where they can improve margins. Phones continue to bite into the market.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,744
3,071
I am now quite certain the M6 II has the AF to be a great BIF camera - it tracks birds incredibly well from what I could manage last week.

Two issues - I'm absolute garbage at BIF. And there's no denying you need to change your panning technique to adjust for the M6's light weight - smeone better than me will get results

Actually three issues. It was damn near impossible to hold the camera while it had a big lens in the face of 90+kph winds due to it's weight balance being so forward. So add to that and the BIF's became more either barely hovering or feathered missiles.

Edit : Honestly the more I use my M6 II the more I wonder what that sensor would be like in a 7D II style bomb proof body, dual cards slots, dual DIGIC 9's etc. Kinda feel like now people have seen that the M6 is right up there and it's "just" an enthusists camera, it's got Canon shooters excited for the future.
The ergonomics of the EOS M series is not designed for big lenses - I can't hand hold comfortably the 100-400mm on my M5 on a calm day, and I use my M with smaller lenses. The take home message is that if you want a 32 Mpx sensor, buy the M6II for more general photography if you want mirrorless or buy the 90D if you hand hold telephotos for nature photography (or buy both). A plus of the 90D is that you can use it as a larger mirrorless but without a viewfinder, not quite as good as the M6 II but still darn good.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
358
313
117
Williamsport, PA
Canon may be on the better path. Sony reminded me of taking a shortcut that's the shortest distance between two points, but no necessarily the best route. Canon seems to be knitting quite a few innovations together at the same time, included a great RF mount, and interesting tools like the AI flash unit they developed.
Remember Sony is an appliance company selling TV's that are outdated every year. They seem to be following that same philosophy with their cameras. So I agree with you.
Remember Canon was last to the game with a viable AF system camera with the EF mount. Nikon, Minolta et al owners laughed at the first EF cameras. Well Canon spent the time and effort to produce a far superior system that all took nearly 30 years to catch up with. Especially Nikon never got caught up until the S mount recently.
Canon is not always first but they do produce innovative and quality rather than the flavor of the month each month camera and they overall work as advertised.
 

canonnews

EOS RP
Dec 27, 2017
337
285
Canada
www.canonnews.com
The 30 fps burst mode is for the 32.5 Mpx sensor cropped to 18 Mpx. So, it isn't done with the pixel equivalent of an 83 Mpx sensor. If the burst was done at the same data transfer rate for the 32.5 Mpx, it would drop to 16.6/s. The Gordon Laing review of the AF of M6 II of seagulls at Brighton is not a good test of AF for BIF - the seagulls there virtually hover along the seafront when I have seen them.
you mis interpreted what I stated. It's the pixel density aka pixel pitch equivalent of 83MP on a full frame sensor if you are viewing at 100%. so if you are looking at pixel AF accuracy, then it's equivalent of 83MP. Of course, the burst MP/sec rate is less, because it's only 18MP but that's not important to the AF accuracy when viewing at 100%.
 

canonnews

EOS RP
Dec 27, 2017
337
285
Canada
www.canonnews.com
No doubt the M6 II is a very decent camera and very compact. Sales seem to be pretty good. My doubts are with the sustainability of the M line longer term. Canon is in a much tougher situation now and will have to make some decisions on what it keeps investing in. Supporting three mounts is potentially not sustainable in a falling market. They are pining their future on the R mount and the EF has a large existing customer base. Close to the M size could be achieved with an R mount.Just like the 1DX III may the high point of EF the M 6 II might be the high point of the M series.
the design criteria for EF-M and RF lenses is not that different with the exception that the EF-M lenses are smaller, and have a diameter restriction.
Canon also uses automated factories for its lens production now, making labor costs extremely low (especially for EF-M lenses).
IMO, this "it's not sustainable in a declining market" has never been backed up with facts.
The mount size difference for EF-M and RF is still fairly significant - the mount is larger, but more importantly, the volume taken up by the mount is much larger. it's a difference of around 10 cubic cm's .. that's alot on a small camera.
 

Travel_Photographer

Travel, Landscape, Architecture
Aug 30, 2019
23
26
I currently have a rental M6 II that I rented because I was curious to see if it was worth upgrading from my original M6, which I think is excellent. (I was actually renting / trying out a Canon 400mm F5.6L for my full-frame and when I saw they also rented the M6 II, I couldn't resist).

The M6 II is also an excellent camera and anyone who's looking to get into the M-series who doesn't already own one, would do very well with it. For me personally, I didn't see enough to go through the process of upgrading, but that's no knock on the M6 II. After using both side-by-side for several days (and I have the M6 II through tomorrow tonight), I'm perfectly happy with my original. One thing I was really anxious to try was the eye-detect autofocus because I use my 32mm 1.4 a lot wide open and with a moving subject, it's easy to focus on a nose or ear. While the eye-detect worked extremely well, I did need to be closer to the person I was photographing than I expected, for it to detect an eye. Otherwise it's defaults back to regular face detect. That's not a complaint or flaw, just my expectations were not in line with how it works. With the 32mm, you need to be just a couple of feet away filling a large part of the frame to detect an eye. Once you take a few steps back, it no longer tracks the eye. With a more telephoto lens, of course you could be farther away, but I love shooting with my 32mm.

The extra megapixels over the original are good to have but even though it sounds like a lot on paper, when I compared identically framed photos side-by-size at full-size, it seemed fairly insignificant to me. Certainly nicer to have more if I didn't already have an M6.

The autofocus tracking was great, but I've had great luck with the original. I was pleasantly surprised with the 30fps RAW burst mode. I didn't think I would ever have a use for it, and I didn't expect it to work as well as it did. It was the feature I was least interested in, and yet found it to be the most fun. Every frame was tack sharp and in focus (I did speeding cars passing by and driving straight away from me). As others have said, it's a crop with less megapixels, but still a very cool feature and worked flawlessly.

The 4K video was good. Just personal preference, but I like to shoot 1080 at 60fps with a shutter of 1/60th. On my original M6, that combo gets me incredibly smooth footage. When I compared identically framed footage in 4K vs 1080/60p, I preferred the 60p, even though you could definitely see more detail in the 4K footage. Again, that's just personal preference.

Overall the M6 II seemed like an awesome camera. If I didn't already have an M6, I'd snap one up in a second. For me, not worth upgrading, but for others, I could see the rationale. I really did like the Raw burst mode. That was very cool and worked great.

As for marketing, I agree that Canon is not marketing the M line to pro users, but I wouldn't underestimate the amount of serious photographers, enthusiasts, and advanced shooters that are out there who love these cameras. They have somewhat of a cult following among lots of groups of people. I absolutely love mine, I use it nearly daily, and I have full-frame bodies.

Lastly, while the balance is not ideal, you can certainly use large lenses on the M6 handheld, very comfortably. Like I mentioned above, when I rented, the purpose was to test out a 400mm F5.6L prime. I intended to use it mostly on my 5D series. I got some great BiF photos with it on the 5D. Then, just for fun, I tried it on my M6 with the adapter, to see how the 640mm would look. It was awesome, and after figuring out the best way to hold it (I wound up holding the lens at the very end of the built-in lens hood), I thought it was great. I photographed nature with it on my M6 all day around where I live. By coincidence I was going to a local zoo the next day. Instead of bringing my full-frame which was my original intent, I brought the 400mm with my M6 instead. Carried it around the zoo all day and got some great photos, all handheld. I wouldn't try BiF with that combination, but for your standard giraffe or tiger who's just lounging around, the combo worked great.

I'm glad I got to try the M6 II. It's an excellent camera and I think anyone getting into the M-line would be very happy with it.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,744
3,071
you mis interpreted what I stated. It's the pixel density aka pixel pitch equivalent of 83MP on a full frame sensor if you are viewing at 100%. so if you are looking at pixel AF accuracy, then it's equivalent of 83MP. Of course, the burst MP/sec rate is less, because it's only 18MP but that's not important to the AF accuracy when viewing at 100%.
If I have misinterpreted you it's because I don't understand what you are saying. What does "pixel AF accuracy" mean?
 

canonnews

EOS RP
Dec 27, 2017
337
285
Canada
www.canonnews.com
I currently have a rental M6 II that I rented because I was curious to see if it was worth upgrading from my original M6, which I think is excellent. (I was actually renting / trying out a Canon 400mm F5.6L for my full-frame and when I saw they also rented the M6 II, I couldn't resist).

The M6 II is also an excellent camera and anyone who's looking to get into the M-series who doesn't already own one, would do very well with it. For me personally, I didn't see enough to go through the process of upgrading, but that's no knock on the M6 II. After using both side-by-side for several days (and I have the M6 II through tomorrow tonight), I'm perfectly happy with my original. One thing I was really anxious to try was the eye-detect autofocus because I use my 32mm 1.4 a lot wide open and with a moving subject, it's easy to focus on a nose or ear. While the eye-detect worked extremely well, I did need to be closer to the person I was photographing than I expected, for it to detect an eye. Otherwise it's defaults back to regular face detect. That's not a complaint or flaw, just my expectations were not in line with how it works. With the 32mm, you need to be just a couple of feet away filling a large part of the frame to detect an eye. Once you take a few steps back, it no longer tracks the eye. With a more telephoto lens, of course you could be farther away, but I love shooting with my 32mm.
Did it work with the 32mm 1.4 for standard headshots with eyeAF? or did it fall back to face detect even for a standard headshot distance?
 

Travel_Photographer

Travel, Landscape, Architecture
Aug 30, 2019
23
26
Did it work with the 32mm 1.4 for standard headshots with eyeAF? or did it fall back to face detect even for a standard headshot distance?
For standard headshot type shots, head and shoulders, etc., it would work great. I just didn't realize how physically close I'd need to be standing to the person to get that framing, when using that particular lens, in order for eye-detect to work. I was more imagining sort of waist-up shots of my toddler running around and having it lock onto his eye from that distance. That wouldn't happen, though standard face-detect still works at that distance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: canonnews

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,224
415
consider if you view an image at 100%. is it in focus? viewing at 100% and determining focus is hugely dependant upon the pixel pitch.
What you are saying sounds more like resolution than AF accuracy.
AF accuracy is independent of pixel pitch. And to say pixel pitch can 'improve AF accuracy' is only because you are affecting DOF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keith_Reeder
The ergonomics of the EOS M series is not designed for big lenses
I very much disagree. Apart from the edge case of high winds, I've found the M6II to be actually quite good with big lenses - It just needs a different technique that I am coming round to. The same can be said for Sony or other small MILC's of course.

My other Canon camera are 7D's and a 1D. And to be honest, I also did try the 90D but there is nothing there that appealed to me over and above the existing cameras. The M6 II did, plus I prefer to use a DSLR as a DLSR - live view really is a bit of kludge that comes off half heated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keith_Reeder

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,744
3,071
I very much disagree. Apart from the edge case of high winds, I've found the M6II to be actually quite good with big lenses - It just needs a different technique that I am coming round to. The same can be said for Sony or other small MILC's of course.

My other Canon camera are 7D's and a 1D. And to be honest, I also did try the 90D but there is nothing there that appealed to me over and above the existing cameras. The M6 II did, plus I prefer to use a DSLR as a DLSR - live view really is a bit of kludge that comes off half heated.
If you are happy hand holding a big lens on a tiny body with a small grip, then continue to enjoy it. It’s your choice. The big difference between the 7D and the 90D is a 32 Mpx sensor vs 20 Mpx, which is the same great plus of the M6 II vs the opposition. And it’s the sensor that sold me the latest camera. Saying that live view is a half-heated kludge in the 90D is to write off another real plus of the camera - it is a great implementation of live view which I am finding very useful for the portraiture I am now having to do.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974