Anybody experience with the eye-autofocus of the M50 Mark ii versus the eye-autofocus of the Eos RP (with af firmware update)? Is there a great difference? Example: portrait of walking person, or kids (photo, not video). Which one is best?
Eye autofocus M50ii vs RP
- Thread starter Hobby
- Start date
st jack photography
..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
I cannot give you a definitive answer, but I would put my money on the RP, despite it being a cheap full frame that hasn't had an update for a while. Shooting in servo mode, doing street candids? The eye AF works well for me and the RP, and the amount of images I shoot with moving subjects that have perfect focus of the eye is amazing, more than I could ask for, really. The only thing I desire at this point is faster FPS shooting, which at present (in the RP) seems faster than even my Sony RX1Rm2, which is a fairly high-end street camera that is a few years older.
I mainly shoot full frame only, but I have shot with M's as recent as m6. ( I have had m3, m5, and m6.) They were not great for AF at all, and I just cannot imagine the cheap m50 vlog camera being much better (for stills). I think I would prefer 5dm2 Live View over a M anything, but that is likely just me and my full frame prejudice.
Where I would say that an RP would work fairly well in many pro situations, the m50 isn't even close. I would even venture to say that in many cases, the larger sensor of full frame is almost always going to give better AF when all other parameters are similar.
Just take what I say with many grains of salt. It could be that I cannot see past my sensor size hate.
I mainly shoot full frame only, but I have shot with M's as recent as m6. ( I have had m3, m5, and m6.) They were not great for AF at all, and I just cannot imagine the cheap m50 vlog camera being much better (for stills). I think I would prefer 5dm2 Live View over a M anything, but that is likely just me and my full frame prejudice.
Where I would say that an RP would work fairly well in many pro situations, the m50 isn't even close. I would even venture to say that in many cases, the larger sensor of full frame is almost always going to give better AF when all other parameters are similar.
Just take what I say with many grains of salt. It could be that I cannot see past my sensor size hate.
Upvote
0
Thanks for your considerations. The M50 Mark ii is said to have "better" eye-autofocus, but better than what? And I can not find a comparison with the RP
, so I don't know how "good" it is. (Perhaps I should rent the M50ii for a day...)
, so I don't know how "good" it is. (Perhaps I should rent the M50ii for a day...)
Upvote
0
Its easier to AF for a APS-C sensor than a FF sensor. That does not mean the result is better if the subject fills the sensor on both. Its easier yet for a tiny phone sensor, but there again, it does not imply a higher quality image.Thanks for your considerations. The M50 Mark ii is said to have "better" eye-autofocus, but better than what? And I can not find a comparison with the RP
Upvote
0
I have the RP. I was considering a portrait lens: the Samyang RF 85mm f/1.4.
Or the Canon RF 85mm f/2.0. (But why not try that Samyang...)
And then I tought: why not that little M50 ii with the Sigma DC DN 56mm f/1.4. That is a portrait lens and a little backup camera, with "good eye autofocus".
Conclusion: I will wait untill the fog in my head disappears. Reading the reactions, probably going for the RF lens.
Or the Canon RF 85mm f/2.0. (But why not try that Samyang...)
And then I tought: why not that little M50 ii with the Sigma DC DN 56mm f/1.4. That is a portrait lens and a little backup camera, with "good eye autofocus".
Conclusion: I will wait untill the fog in my head disappears. Reading the reactions, probably going for the RF lens.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
