M6 mk II review...

Jul 12, 2017
120
85
Ideally, an M5 II would come out with, at the very least a deeper buffer out of your list (maybe IBIS is a problem they haven't solved yet), and a flippy screen and of course a viewfinder (either popup or fixed), plus some other goodies to make sure it's "higher" than the M6 II.

[Of course maybe IBIS is a problem they haven't quite solved yet AND they want to put it in the M5 II and that is why they haven't announced it yet?]

If I knew that it was never going to happen, I'd jump on the M6 II. So what's going to happen is, I'll wait. Probably until Black Friday. If there's still absolutely not hint of an M5 II by then, it's 90% I'll go for the M6 II, and be pretty happy with it.
Yea personally I don't mind the detachable EVF in this case for my intended use for the camera as much as I'd love a built in EVF and proper/flip articulated screen. Deeper buffer and IBIS are just nitpicking haha; can easily do without both I just think it's a bit of a shame when the camera is able to shoot at 14fps yet the buffer is so small and IBIS is obviously just nice to have.

I thought about maybe waiting for the M5II too but as rumour has it (well according to DPR's conversation to Canon rep) the M6II replaces both M5 and M6 but of course that's open to interpretation.

I am just really excited at the capability and image quality of such a small camera, all I need is the 11-22 and 32 1.4 and I am set! Everything else will be on my 5D4 anyway.
 

SteveC

M50 & T6i
Sep 3, 2019
294
165
Yea personally I don't mind the detachable EVF in this case for my intended use for the camera as much as I'd love a built in EVF and proper/flip articulated screen. Deeper buffer and IBIS are just nitpicking haha; can easily do without both I just think it's a bit of a shame when the camera is able to shoot at 14fps yet the buffer is so small and IBIS is obviously just nice to have.

I thought about maybe waiting for the M5II too but as rumour has it (well according to DPR's conversation to Canon rep) the M6II replaces both M5 and M6 but of course that's open to interpretation.

I am just really excited at the capability and image quality of such a small camera, all I need is the 11-22 and 32 1.4 and I am set! Everything else will be on my 5D4 anyway.
Those are the very two lenses I am going to buy, probably before I get one or the other of those cameras--they'll work fine on my M50. (Actually if an M50 II comes out, it may work for me better than the M6 II depending.)

The flippy screen is probably the one thing on the list of four (IBIS, buffer, integrated view finder, flippy screen) that I'd most like to have. I like to be able to protect the screen by flipping it facing into the body. It's probably the main reason I didn't buy an M5 in the first place, opting for the M50. Later on I came to realize I wanted more physical controls. I'm at the point now where the M6 II is clearly looking better for me than the M50; I'm just waiting to see if the M5 II "shoe" drops.

And a rep said, to me, the same thing, the M6II "replaces" the M5. But another rep, at the same event, wouldn't say that that meant there would never be an M5II. So I interpret it as saying they think the M6II is better than the M5 and they might even discontinue the M5. But I'm not very confident I'm reading them correctly.
 
Jul 12, 2017
120
85
Yea I almost picked up the M50 myself until I realised the lack of physical controls/dials annoyed me a bit. Blessing in disguise as I'm glad I waited for the new body. Again going off sample raw files that are available I am convinced the new sensor is an improvement in overall IQ and not just higher megapixel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

OneSnark

Canon Fanboy
Aug 20, 2019
25
9
OK let me reframe my input.

Effectively their assertion is that a $150 kit zoom doesn't have the IQ that a $500 prime lens does, does that surprise anybody?

If you are happy with the performance of the 15-45 on an earlier M you will get a corresponding increase in resolution using a newer M, the prime will give higher IQ than the kit zoom on both early and later cameras too.
From the first page of the thread. . . . . . I watched parts of the review.

My take away was "If you put a $150 lens on a $1000 body - - - -prepare for disappointment".

It's all about the glass: Which is fine;

The real problem is that unless you use EF adapters; the only choice in the EF-M line are either the $150 zooms or the $500 primes.
I suspect part of the point of mirrorless is *convenience*; which from a "user" point of view means zooms. . .not primes.

I think if there were one or two F4 zooms (Say $500-$1000) each. . .I would make the leap, and use the EF adapters for the long glass or if I felt compelled to mount a F2.8 for an event.
So as an upgrade option. . .the case for a M6 (with kit glass) is weak.

Right now. . .the only compelling aspect of the EF-M system is the 32/1.4. . . and honestly; I have a 35/1.4 (the old one) for my 80D. . .so the case for the M6 becomes even weaker.


Funny that with all the hype about mirrorless. . . I can't seem to find a home in the Canon lineup. The EF-M lenses are too cheap. The RF lenses are too expensive.
 

SteveC

M50 & T6i
Sep 3, 2019
294
165
Funny that with all the hype about mirrorless. . . I can't seem to find a home in the Canon lineup. The EF-M lenses are too cheap. The RF lenses are too expensive.
This at least seems to me like a valid observation (someone might knock me down on this, and that's fine if they can back up what they're saying--I'll learn). There's a high end set of optics, and an low end, but not much in the middle, unless you use adapted EF glass. I suspect a lot of (potential) EF-M lenses would be physically larger diameter (certainly a long zoom or prime would be), and so far Canon has not wanted to do that (though third parties might). On the RF side, there are no size constraints, but Canon hasn't yet put out a lot of non-L material. (Here, Canon has done some and I expect they'll do more.)

Whether that's actually a bad thing is another matter entirely. You can 1) get a small convenient system without a lot of super zoom or long capability (EF-M by itself). 2) you can supplement this with EF lenses. 3) you can get a somewhat larger system with vastly better IQ and super-expensive quality lenses to match (RF by itself). Or 4) you can supplement that RF system, again with EF lenses--or even have no RF lenses at all.

By making it as easy as possible to adapt EF lenses to these two different camera lines, Canon is accommodating four "strata" of photography, without having to develop new lenses to do things EF is already capable of. Eventually they might do so, but for now, they've got bigger fish to fry.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,129
1,646
Canada
This at least seems to me like a valid observation (someone might knock me down on this, and that's fine if they can back up what they're saying--I'll learn). There's a high end set of optics, and an low end, but not much in the middle, unless you use adapted EF glass. I suspect a lot of (potential) EF-M lenses would be physically larger diameter (certainly a long zoom or prime would be), and so far Canon has not wanted to do that (though third parties might). On the RF side, there are no size constraints, but Canon hasn't yet put out a lot of non-L material. (Here, Canon has done some and I expect they'll do more.)

Whether that's actually a bad thing is another matter entirely. You can 1) get a small convenient system without a lot of super zoom or long capability (EF-M by itself). 2) you can supplement this with EF lenses. 3) you can get a somewhat larger system with vastly better IQ and super-expensive quality lenses to match (RF by itself). Or 4) you can supplement that RF system, again with EF lenses--or even have no RF lenses at all.

By making it as easy as possible to adapt EF lenses to these two different camera lines, Canon is accommodating four "strata" of photography, without having to develop new lenses to do things EF is already capable of. Eventually they might do so, but for now, they've got bigger fish to fry.
I think that medium price R lenses will eventually come, but initially we will see a lot of expensive special lenses and adaptors on EF glass
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Rocky

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 30, 2010
916
28
“Funny that with all the hype about mirrorless. . . I can't seem to find a home in the Canon lineup. The EF-M lenses are too cheap. The RF lenses are too expensive.”

Some EF-M lenses are plastic construction, even with plastic mount. They do look cheap. But I do not think they are cheap in optical performance. Canon try to make the EF-M leases light and small with a good performance to price ratio. I Have been using the M system for 4 years and have no complain on the picture quality., with 22/2, 11-22 ,18-55 and 15-45 lenses. I also use the 28 to 135 as my telephoto lens when I need it. I switched from 40D with 17 to 40 f4 L and 28- to 135 lens and have never look back. Mirrorless is not a hype. It is a reality. I do not do sport or birding. These will not be the strong suite for mirrorless.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

SteveC

M50 & T6i
Sep 3, 2019
294
165
“Funny that with all the hype about mirrorless. . . I can't seem to find a home in the Canon lineup. The EF-M lenses are too cheap. The RF lenses are too expensive.”

Some EF-M lenses are plastic construction, even with plastic mount. They do look cheap. But I do not think they are cheap in optical performance. Canon try to make the EF-M leases light and small with a good performance to price ratio. I Have been using the M system for 4 years and have no complain on the picture quality., with 22/2, 18-55 and 15-45 lenses. I also use the 28 to 135 as my telephoto lens when I need it. I switched from 40D with 17 to 40 f4 L and 28- to 135 lens and have never look back. Mirrorless is not a hype. It is a reality. I do not do sport or birding. These will not be the strong suite for mirrorless.
28-135? Is this something they have discontinued? All I can find is 18-150 and 55-200 for "long" (ish) zoom lenses.

My M-50 currently sports the Tamron 18-200, which is a bit fatter but works; I never really compared its IQ to the two Canon lenses though.
 

Rocky

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 30, 2010
916
28
28-135? Is this something they have discontinued? All I can find is 18-150 and 55-200 for "long" (ish) zoom lenses.

My M-50 currently sports the Tamron 18-200, which is a bit fatter but works; I never really compared its IQ to the two Canon lenses though.
Sorry, I did not make it clear.That is a OLD EF 28-135 .lens from my 40D days. I use it on M50 With EF to M adapter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Eagle Eye

EOS 80D
Jul 5, 2011
176
2
Virginia
I thought the review was fine, but I definitely question whether there’s scientific method behind some of their assertions. The main claim I have an issue with is that the EF-M 32mm is the only native lens to benefit from the increased resolution. Every lens will benefit from increased sensor resolution, even if marginally. On top of that, my EF-M 11-22mm generally out-resolves my EF 16-35mm f/4L and my EF-M 18-55 generally out-resolves my EF 24-70 f/4L. The EF-M 28mm Macro is crisp as a fall morning. I’m expecting substantial sharpness gains with those lenses attached. When the 5Ds landed, Lens Rentals evaluated how much glass would benefit from the increased resolution. I hope someone will do that with the M6 Mark II.

I also think DPR’s continued assertion that this replaces the M5 is just spin to drive up their views. Canon hasn’t said that. Canon hasn’t told anyone else that. DPR doesn’t have some special insight that no one else has. I continue to expect an M5 replacement. There aren’t a whole lot of other reasons to intentionally cripple aspects of the M6 Mark II, such as the buffer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: docsmith

docsmith

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 17, 2010
859
236
I thought the review was fine, but I definitely question whether there’s scientific method behind some of their assertions. The main claim I have an issue with is that the EF-M 32mm is the only native lens to benefit from the increased resolution. Every lens will benefit from increased sensor resolution, even if marginally. On top of that, my EF-M 11-22mm generally out-resolves my EF 16-35mm f/4L and my EF-M 18-55 generally out-resolves my EF 24-70 f/4L. The EF-M 28mm Macro is crisp as a fall morning. I’m expecting substantial sharpness gains with those lenses attached. When the 5Ds landed, Lens Rentals evaluated how much glass would benefit from the increased resolution. I hope someone will do that with the M6 Mark II.
All this hating on the EFm glass is not consistent with my experience either or the testing I've seen. Granted I do not own the 32 f/1.4, and maybe it is the best of the bunch and I do not own the 15-45, maybe it is the worst. But I do own the 11-22, which is great glass, 18-55, 22, 28, and 55-200. I'd say the 55-200 is a little "meh" even though I've taken some shots I really like with it, but the rest are very good.

These are just easy targets because of their price points.

Is the M system meant to be elite, no, but is it exceptionally capable, yeah, it really is, especially for its price. I currently own the M3. IQ has not been a complaint of mine, rather its AF is fairly slow. Great for still images, but doesn't keep up with subjects that are walking, for example. I have a feeling the M6 is more than capable of that.

So, before this "lenses are no good" thing becomes gospel, I would encourage people to do a bit of homework, for example:



 

OneSnark

Canon Fanboy
Aug 20, 2019
25
9
“Funny that with all the hype about mirrorless. . . I can't seem to find a home in the Canon lineup. The EF-M lenses are too cheap. The RF lenses are too expensive.”

Some EF-M lenses are plastic construction, even with plastic mount. They do look cheap. But I do not think they are cheap in optical performance. Canon try to make the EF-M leases light and small with a good performance to price ratio. I Have been using the M system for 4 years and have no complain on the picture quality., with 22/2, 11-22 ,18-55 and 15-45 lenses. I also use the 28 to 135 as my telephoto lens when I need it. I switched from 40D with 17 to 40 f4 L and 28- to 135 lens and have never look back. Mirrorless is not a hype. It is a reality. I do not do sport or birding. These will not be the strong suite for mirrorless.
I do not mind plastic construction (assuming its reflected in the price). . . .I have long been a fan of the 50/1.8 plastic fantastic.

However, at my age I am not really interested in buying F3.5-F6.3 lenses. :) I am a bit snobbish that way -> I figure half the point of an ILC is the ability to mount fast(er) glass. I also do enough photography at iso 3200 and 125 shutter (to stop subject motion) to appreciate an extra stop or two.

I figure if it is SLOW and PLASTIC, then how much in-depth research do I need to do regarding image quality?
I can probably find many reviews claiming the 18-55 kit lens is better than a 24-70/2.8L.

I can appreciate the use of adapters to mount specialty lenses - - > but my view is the primary walkabout lenses *probably* should be native mount. For example, if there was decent 10-22 and 24-105 option in the native mount, then I probably wouldn't mind using an adaptor for lenses like 85/1.8 and a 100-400 when the situation required.

_____________

FWIW: Hey! I had a 40D with a both the 17-40/4L and the 28-135 back in the day. I actually found both a bit soft, and migrated to primes. Now shooting with a 10-22 and 24-105 in my day kit.
_____________

"Mirrorless is not a hype. It is a reality".
I don't deny the direction on the industry. I haven't had a viewfinder on a P&S in 10 years. Don't miss it.
However, my experience with "live view" focusing on the 80D is "not there yet". Sure. . .it probably outperforms my P&S.. . .but the expectations of a dSLR is higher.

I just saw the 90D review on DPR.
They make it sound like that some significant improvements have been made in terms of live view AF capability. That would be a good thing. Would we have any reason to believe the M6 would not perform more-or-less identically? It very much seems the cameras are functionally equivalent.
 

JohnC

EOS M50
Sep 22, 2019
35
30
Gainesville,GA
First time poster but long time lurker here. I downloaded some sample images of the M6 Mk ii and I was pretty impressed with what I saw. I shoot a 5D4 for my more "serious" work, but like something I can take on business trips that is small and light. I had an M3 at one time, but wasn't that impressed with it, sold it and bought a Fuji XT-2. The Fuji is a nice camera to shoot with, and the jpeg quality is great. I do NOT enjoy working the the raw files in Lr however.

Made the decision to order the M6 Mk ii, and sell my Fuji equipment. We will see but I think I'm going to like the change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: angrykarl

Graphic.Artifacts

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 1, 2017
425
244
First time poster but long time lurker here. I downloaded some sample images of the M6 Mk ii and I was pretty impressed with what I saw. I shoot a 5D4 for my more "serious" work, but like something I can take on business trips that is small and light. I had an M3 at one time, but wasn't that impressed with it, sold it and bought a Fuji XT-2. The Fuji is a nice camera to shoot with, and the jpeg quality is great. I do NOT enjoy working the the raw files in Lr however.

Made the decision to order the M6 Mk ii, and sell my Fuji equipment. We will see but I think I'm going to like the change.
Interesting. I'm going to stick with my Fuji for now because Canon doesn't make a comparable body for video, but, I do like what I'm seeing with the M6 Mark II. FujiFilm seems to be more committed to offering high quality native lenses but there is definitely something to be said for the M62's compatability with my Canon EF lenses. I'm keeping an open mind for now.
 

Graphic.Artifacts

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 1, 2017
425
244
Does anyone know if the M6 EVF can be used off-camera via some sort of "hot shoe" extension? In other words, could I cage the M6 Mark II and use the EVF remotely from another location?
 

JohnC

EOS M50
Sep 22, 2019
35
30
Gainesville,GA
Interesting. I'm going to stick with my Fuji for now because Canon doesn't make a comparable body for video, but, I do like what I'm seeing with the M6 Mark II. FujiFilm seems to be more committed to offering high quality native lenses but there is definitely something to be said for the M62's compatability with my Canon EF lenses. I'm keeping an open mind for now.

I might very well have a different view if I did anything with video which I don't. I do like Fuji's lenses, and the XT is a joy to shoot. My primary goal is keeping the kit size down and I found myself not taking the Fuji kit for the save reason I don't take my Canon 5D kit. I think either will do what I need from a travel standpoint, and should be more than good enough to have some quick to catch the kid moments.

The M6 files look pretty darn good from what I've seen so far. I hope I keep that opinion when it is in my hands.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,129
1,646
Canada
Does anyone know if the M6 EVF can be used off-camera via some sort of "hot shoe" extension? In other words, could I cage the M6 Mark II and use the EVF remotely from another location?
That would be extremely unlikely.

Personally, I would like to see a camera app, where you could connect to the camera over Bluetooth, and see the display and control the camera
 
  • Like
Reactions: Graphic.Artifacts

SteveC

M50 & T6i
Sep 3, 2019
294
165
That would be extremely unlikely.

Personally, I would like to see a camera app, where you could connect to the camera over Bluetooth, and see the display and control the camera
My first question on that is...can Bluetooth carry a high res video signal? That's what it would take to feed the display. (What you'd send to the camera, controlling it, would be a pittance compared to that.)

But one thing I CAN imagine, is a dingus that plugs into the hot shoe--and carries the signal through a cable to a display (or the viewfinder) far away. Imagine holding the camera in your right hand, two to three feet away from your body, and looking through the viewfinder held in your left hand (yeah, that would not be very stable, but in some circumstances could still be very useful even if not likely to be artistic).
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,129
1,646
Canada
My first question on that is...can Bluetooth carry a high res video signal? That's what it would take to feed the display. (What you'd send to the camera, controlling it, would be a pittance compared to that.)

But one thing I CAN imagine, is a dingus that plugs into the hot shoe--and carries the signal through a cable to a display (or the viewfinder) far away. Imagine holding the camera in your right hand, two to three feet away from your body, and looking through the viewfinder held in your left hand (yeah, that would not be very stable, but in some circumstances could still be very useful even if not likely to be artistic).
Yes..... I have had to shoot in some very confined spaces. Any of these solutions would be great!
 

Graphic.Artifacts

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 1, 2017
425
244
My first question on that is...can Bluetooth carry a high res video signal? That's what it would take to feed the display. (What you'd send to the camera, controlling it, would be a pittance compared to that.)

But one thing I CAN imagine, is a dingus that plugs into the hot shoe--and carries the signal through a cable to a display (or the viewfinder) far away. Imagine holding the camera in your right hand, two to three feet away from your body, and looking through the viewfinder held in your left hand (yeah, that would not be very stable, but in some circumstances could still be very useful even if not likely to be artistic).
That's what I was thinking. If the signal is being sent to the hot shoe, could some third party create a cable to a remote hot shoe. If Canon sells enough M6's there might be enough of a market to get somebody interested. Don's probably right about the chances being slim though.