EFCS? Seems like they left it off the m6 II for some strange reason.
Upvote
0
I agree that 12 FPS seems weird for the new flagship. In terms of aggression, by bifurcating their camera line into the M and R, Canon can essentially put whatever they want/can into the M bodies without fear of hurting their R-series sales. I wouldn’t be surprised if they roll out some M cameras that are impossible for Nikon and Sony to adequately compete with without Nikon and Sony cutting into sales of their full-frame models, which yield greater margins. Pretty genius, IMHO.The 12 FPS is odd, as the M6 II already does 14 FPS mechanical and even 30 in the electronic crop mode. A downgrade in speed makes no sense for higher end model, and dual cards seem unlikely for an M50.
Of course it may be that Canon is getting ready to take the gloves off and ripp their competitors a new one. But I don't think the M system really requires that mucb aggression.
Where have you seen the two directly compared on image quality? I've been looking for basically the same reason and haven't found a good head to head comparison which seems odd for the direct successor in a line.
Specs sounds like higher than M6 II.
But if it is M50 II then that is a BIG upgrade.
I agree as well. I don't see the M7 which is the flagship of the EOS M line to have 12 fps meanwhile the m6 II has 14 fps. Some people get triggered when we talk about the specs of the M50 II especially M6 II owners saying things like "you might as well just wish to have everything that's superior to the M6 II but at half the price". But these people don't understand, remember back when we were comparing lower end T3i T4i DSLRs vs higher end DSLR like the 7D? They all use the same sensor with full HD 1080 recording, but the differences are things like focus points, fps, build quality, weather sealing, etc. Technology keeps on advancing and you can have newer tech on a lower end camera thats not built as tough, with lower fps, dual card slots, but with new stuffs like IBIS and animal eye AF. I don't see how thats contradicting.Unless the m50 moves upmarket, it seems likely this will be the m5 II or a new higher model, since dual card slots in a crop body is usually a high end feature (eg. 7d II).
When everything is “the best” nothing is the best.With the Digic X I am sure there are plenty of parts that don't meet the spec that can become a lower speed part for a APSC. Though, I think at this point they need to put the best processor and best EVF into every camera to really push them. People using any Canon EVF should feel like it is the best experience ever and if they upgrade they know they'll be getting the best EVF and AF performance possible. Cut out the lag and dispel peoples distrust of the EVF.
Cold day in hell before I buy an EF-M camera, just make it RF and stop wasting our time with the dead-end mountAll that is missing is the RF mount. Come on Canon!
What is the meaning of "dead-end mount"?Cold day in hell before I buy an EF-M camera, just make it RF and stop wasting our time with the dead-end mount
I agree with you for a number of reasons which was in another thread about the M7.7DII replacement? I was rather hoping that the flagship APS-C would be an RF mount. Maybe the new M-mount APS-C will become the M1?
I think the size of the RF lenses negate the advantages of the size of the M series.I have nothing to back this up but I think we may see a Canon M mount to RF adapter at the same time as the new cameras launch.
There needs to be more budget RF glass to really make this work but I could see it.
What is the meaning of "dead-end mount"?
RF lenses would look a bit daft on the M, surely any of the RF lenses you would really want are just comically too big and too front heavy for the M mount. Keeping M smaller seems to be the goal, Canon may have stats that M users don't upgrade to R, or perhaps hope if M uses do that they'll buy all new lenses.
The 12 FPS is odd, as the M6 II already does 14 FPS mechanical and even 30 in the electronic crop mode. A downgrade in speed makes no sense for higher end model, and dual cards seem unlikely for an M50.
Of course it may be that Canon is getting ready to take the gloves off and ripp their competitors a new one. But I don't think the M system really requires that mucb aggression.
As a M6 II owner, you could not be more wrong about the "too big and too heavy" comment. I've had 400 2.8 on it and my 100-400 II just about lives on the adapter. It just works and just isnt an issue.
Why do people keep saying this when actual owners keep say "Wait up a sec here...."
As a M6 II owner, you could not be more wrong about the "too big and too heavy" comment. I've had 400 2.8 on it and my 100-400 II just about lives on the adapter. It just works and just isnt an issue.
Why do people keep saying this when actual owners keep say "Wait up a sec here...."[..]