# M6 mk II review...



## SteveC (Sep 17, 2019)

Yes, I know it's DPR review.

And yes, I know they kvetch prominently about no 24p.

But they do praise a lot of things.

The reason I posted this is that they make one assertion I found interesting...that out of all the EF-M lenses, only the 32 mm is good enough for the sensor. (Almost as if, they were planning for the new sensor when they (relatively recently) released the 32 mm...)

Anyhow, what do you all think about that statement? Is it bogus? If it ISN'T bogus, what does it mean for the future of EF-M lenses--are they going to come out with more of them? Or is this camera targeted for people willing to adapt EF lenses?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 17, 2019)

I got 6 seconds in. I'm sorry it is bullish!t.

As for the lens assertion, that is bullish!t too.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I got 6 seconds in. I'm sorry it is bullish!t.
> 
> As for the lens assertion, that is bullish!t too.



You didn't even get past the stupid "I want my..." then.

It was actually mildly laudatory after that; they praise the autofocus, ergos, and sensor.

Thanks for answering the main question, too.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 17, 2019)

I felt I commented so went back and tried again, the lens comments are just so off base these guys do photo enthusiasts a massive disservice. The things they say are not true and they know they are not true......


----------



## SteveC (Sep 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I felt I commented so went back and tried again, the lens comments are just so off base these guys do photo enthusiasts a massive disservice. The things they say are not true and they know they are not true......



I'm reassured since I'll likely be buying the 11-22 soon...as I wait for the M5 II (or M6 II--or who knows, the M50 II might work out best).


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 17, 2019)

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.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> 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.



I don't think they were limiting their negative commentary to the 15-45, but rather to all six or eight of the EF-M lenses.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 17, 2019)

No but the price/quality/functionality equation holds true. The 22mm prime is less than half the price of the 32mm prime, the 18-150 is an 8x zoom! They aren't saying anything that isn't obvious they are just saying it in a disingenuous and hyperbolic emotion grabbing way.

The sensor is not better than the lenses, the lenses are spread across a range of prices and functions and have different levels of IQ, the best lenses look the best, the not so good lenses don't look as good, this isn't news, so they spin it to sound dramatic.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 17, 2019)

Too much beer, too little photography. It just struck me as amateur hour.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 17, 2019)

It's hard to make it all the way through youtoob camera reviews. But again it seems to be yet another tick for the image quality and sensor performance.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 17, 2019)

They actually admit themselves several times that "at this price point" the M6II is doing well across the board, maybe even the leader. But, they cannot help themselves but compare it to much more expensive gear. That said, looks like a nice camera to me.

What caught me off guard was their statement that the M6 II replaces both the M5 and M6 (1.55). Has anyone else heard that? I've been assuming a M5II will be released in 6 months or so.

Also...11:25...."Image Quality is a big step up for Canon." 
I'll take it for what it is worth. But here is to hoping that there is some improvement in Canon's sensors. I love my 5DIV, but always happy when gear is improving. We'll see.


----------



## BillB (Sep 17, 2019)

docsmith said:


> They actually admit themselves several times that "at this price point" the M6II is doing well across the board, maybe even the leader. But, they cannot help themselves but compare it to much more expensive gear. That said, looks like a nice camera to me.
> 
> What caught me off guard was their statement that the M6 II replaces both the M5 and M6 (1.55). Has anyone else heard that? I've been assuming a M5II will be released in 6 months or so.
> 
> ...


A couple of weeks ago, somebody thought they heard somebody from Canon say that the M 6II is replacing both the M5 and M6, and there was some buzz about that. DPR was one of the main buzzers, but nobody really knows. Canon hasn't said anything one way or the other about the M5II.

It does look like the new Canon sensor is a step up in IQ, but that assessment is still work in progress


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 17, 2019)

docsmith said:


> They actually admit themselves several times that "at this price point" the M6II is doing well across the board, maybe even the leader. But, they cannot help themselves but compare it to much more expensive gear. That said, looks like a nice camera to me.



Yeah, if the biggest critique of an enthusiast camera is that it can't do _professional_ video… But of course they can get more views by exaggerating and lampooning small issues, that's part of their shtick.



> What caught me off guard was their statement that the M6 II replaces both the M5 and M6 (1.55). Has anyone else heard that? I've been assuming a M5II will be released in 6 months or so.



DPR has said repeatedly that Canon reps told them that the M6II is a replacement for both. Some other sources have reported the same, but I don't think that necessarily implies that there won't be a M5II (or equivalent). Especially given that apparently the M5 will continue to be available.


----------



## dpc (Sep 17, 2019)

Looks like a great camera. I'm tempted. The problem I have is the way it's being sold in Canada. As far as I can see it can only be purchased with the 15-45 or 18-150 lenses, neither of which I want. There seems not to be a body only option. That may change, of course, but it does seem a bit odd.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 17, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> DPR has said repeatedly that Canon reps told them that the M6II is a replacement for both. Some other sources have reported the same, but I don't think that necessarily implies that there won't be a M5II (or equivalent). Especially given that apparently the M5 will continue to be available.



...and this IS DPR.

But I did ask a trio of canon reps a couple of weekends ago and one of them repeated the exact same phrasing--I suspect Canon is telling its reps this. I got the sense that because it IS a "replace"ment, the M5-without-mark-number will be discontinued as well as the M6-without-mark-number. (One of the reps got really testy when I referred to it as the M5 mark I; he's a stickler for the accurate terminology; but I was trying to distinguish it from the line as a whole--even if it only has one member.) 

However, they would NOT say that an M5-II was never coming.

One thing I gleaned (which may not be news to non-n00bs) is that if something isn't announced by the end of October or so, it's not going to be announced before the end of March.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 17, 2019)

dpc said:


> Looks like a great camera. I'm tempted. The problem I have is the way it's being sold in Canada. As far as I can see it can only be purchased with the 15-45 or 18-150 lenses, neither of which I want. There seems not to be a body only option. That may change, of course, but it does seem a bit odd.



And in the States, the only way to get the viewfinder bundled is to buy the kit with those lenses. We CAN get body only, but won't get the viewfinder that way. I already have the 15-45, and am not terribly interested in the 18-150 as I already have the Tamron 18-200. I suppose I could buy one of those kits and simply sell the lens back to the retailer (if they will do it--I suspect Canon frowns on that practice) for enough to partially recompense me for a stand-alone-package viewfinder.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 17, 2019)

Thanks. Makes sense that the M6 II replacing both is more of them spreading a rumor they heard.

Generally, it seemed to me that the M5 was more popular than the M6. But, they were very close, so I could see Canon eventually replacing the M5 but moving it up market a bit. I am not sure which features that would include...but maybe just enough to make Jordan happy.....


----------



## SteveC (Sep 17, 2019)

docsmith said:


> Thanks. Makes sense that the M6 II replacing both is more of them spreading a rumor they heard.
> 
> Generally, it seemed to me that the M5 was more popular than the M6. But, they were very close, so I could see Canon eventually replacing the M5 but moving it up market a bit. I am not sure which features that would include...but maybe just enough to make Jordan happy.....



Well, I'm hoping for the flippy screen. I think one of the reps I talked to grudgingly conceded I had a point--it's on the "entry level" M50, why not higher models?


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 17, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Well, I'm hoping for the flippy screen. I think one of the reps I talked to grudgingly conceded I had a point--it's on the "entry level" M50, why not higher models?



It's on the RP and R as well....


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 17, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Well, I'm hoping for the flippy screen. I think one of the reps I talked to grudgingly conceded I had a point--it's on the "entry level" M50, why not higher models?



They want you to buy the RP instead


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 17, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Well, I'm hoping for the flippy screen. I think one of the reps I talked to grudgingly conceded I had a point--it's on the "entry level" M50, why not higher models?


On stills orientated cameras I prefer the M5/M6/M6 II style of tilting screen than the M50 tilt flip swivel, stand out from the body to get any angle on it style.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 17, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> They want you to buy the RP instead



Ironically, I *have* thought about doing so...someday.

But now I don't want to, because it actually has fewer pixels, and more than likely slower performance than the almost-entry-level M6 II!! (No, I'm not insisting on 83 MP, which is what the number would be if the pixels subtended the same angle for both cameras, but it just seems odd to me to move to a full frame with _fewer_ total pixels than a crop frame.)


----------



## SteveC (Sep 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> On stills orientated cameras I prefer the M5/M6/M6 II style of tilting screen than the M50 tilt flip swivel, stand out from the body to get any angle on it style.



I can certainly see that.

But the main attraction of the flippy screen is I can store it faced into the camera--protected from dings and scratches.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 17, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Ironically, I *have* thought about doing so...someday.
> 
> But now I don't want to, because it actually has fewer pixels, and more than likely slower performance than the almost-entry-level M6 II!! (No, I'm not insisting on 83 MP, which is what the number would be if the pixels subtended the same angle for both cameras, but it just seems odd to me to move to a full frame with _fewer_ total pixels than a crop frame.)


The M6 MkII is as far away from entry level as you can get! You have the M100, M50, M5, M6, M6 II.

I don't see the crossover between the M and the R, they are completely different tools with very different lens options and priorities and price points. The best primes in M are $200-500, the best primes in RF are $2,500, five to twelve times the amount. The M is optimized for size with a great feature set a stunningly capable comparatively large sensor and a reasonably sized and orientated line of modest lenses. That EF lenses fit on it with an adapter is a bonus, not the raison d'etre. The R line is built for lens quality.

If you need the size and portability it is the M, if you want the best 135 can give you for some types of shooting the R is your tool. Don't be fooled by pixel numbers or video reviews desperate for hits and affiliate links, get the camera that best suits your needs be that a Canon M or R/RF or Sony or whatever else has the feature set you prioritize.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 17, 2019)

2012 was a good year for Canon in lenses, IMO. Whoever they had designing these lenses that hit the market in 2012 was an artist and knew how an image should look. The collective 'he' wasn't interested in charts and MTF50s, he wanted lenses that drew well with a three dimensional image and pastel soft bokeh, not resolution monsters that the likes of Sigma produced and ironically called them 'Art'. We had the 35/2 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 40/2.8 and the EF-m 22/2. Lenses that are capable of producing beautiful images for practical photographers, not measurabators. I have the 22/2 on M5, M3 before that and it will continue to be as good on the M6ii as it was on those cameras. Things are changing though, maybe they have to with the dense pixel sensors that we are offered now and the likes of DPR calling out lenses that don't resolve as strongly as others. The EF 35/1.4 II appears to be an uber corrected chart monster, maybe the RF lenses are too. I haven't used any yet so don't know, but I'm unlikely to anyway I guess.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 17, 2019)

Sporgon said:


> 2012 was a good year for Canon in lenses, IMO. Whoever they had designing these lenses that hit the market in 2012 was an artist and knew how an image should look. The collective 'he' wasn't interested in charts and MTF50s, he wanted lenses that drew well with a three dimensional image and pastel soft bokeh, not resolution monsters that the likes of Sigma produced and ironically called them 'Art'. We had the 35/2 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 40/2.8 and the EF-m 22/2. Lenses that are capable of producing beautiful images for practical photographers, not measurabators. I have the 22/2 on M5, M3 before that and it will continue to be as good on the M6ii as it was on those cameras. Things are changing though, maybe they have to with the dense pixel sensors that we are offered now and the likes of DPR calling out lenses that don't resolve as strongly as others. The EF 35/1.4 II appears to be an uber corrected chart monster, maybe the RF lenses are too. I haven't used any yet so don't know, but I'm unlikely to anyway I guess.


Well said Sporgon.

I love the M22 and the EF 35 f2 IS. Indeed if I could have only one lens (depending on camera) it would be one of those two. I currently favor the 35 f2 but that is because I use FF a lot more than crop.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't see the crossover between the M and the R, they are completely different tools with very different lens options and priorities and price points. The best primes in M are $200-500, the best primes in RF are $2,500, five to twelve times the amount. The M is optimized for size with a great feature set a stunningly capable comparatively large sensor and a reasonably sized and orientated line of modest lenses. That EF lenses fit on it with an adapter is a bonus, not the raison d'etre. The R line is built for lens quality.



I wasn't saying there was a crossover. If-and-when I go into R-land, it will be to fill a different niche. To be honest, I've yet to identify anything I *personally* would need an R or RP or R<fill in the letter> to do. Right now at my current ability, I can't justify an R (or RP) to myself. But I seem to be coming into this at just the right time--by the time I *am* able to justify full frame, I should be able to step directly into mirrorless. (And waiting means I will have more R-type body choices.)

Anyhow, the current models seem to have a wider Field Of View...and _less_ total detail than the M6-II (which I will buy, if an M5 II doesn't come out first). I can get a better tradeoff than that just using a shorter lens (and cheaper too) on an M6 II. (Obviously, that's not all there is to it--the FF lens will of course be a better quality optic than an EF-M lens. But I can have that largely covered too, with the adapter and EF lenses. (It won't be one of the super RF lenses, but it will be a vastly better lens than an EF-M lens.)) Yeah, that's my gut telling me to wait and see, rather than just jump on an RP now, but that's what I think I _should_ be doing anyway. Meanwhile, I did enjoy the R I "played" with a couple of weekends ago (they had no RPs), though my primary mission was to try out Fv mode (which I was delighted to see is on the M6 II).


----------



## BillB (Sep 17, 2019)

SteveC said:


> I wasn't saying there was a crossover. If-and-when I go into R-land, it will be to fill a different niche. To be honest, I've yet to identify anything I *personally* would need an R or RP or R<fill in the letter> to do. Right now at my current ability, I can't justify an R (or RP) to myself. But I seem to be coming into this at just the right time--by the time I *am* able to justify full frame, I should be able to step directly into mirrorless. (And waiting means I will have more R-type body choices.)
> 
> Anyhow, the current models seem to have a wider Field Of View...and _less_ total detail than the M6-II (which I will buy, if an M5 II doesn't come out first). I can get a better tradeoff than that just using a shorter lens (and cheaper too) on an M6 II. (Obviously, that's not all there is to it--the FF lens will of course be a better quality optic than an EF-M lens. But I can have that largely covered too, with the adapter and EF lenses. (It won't be one of the super RF lenses, but it will be a vastly better lens than an EF-M lens.)) Yeah, that's my gut telling me to wait and see, rather than just jump on an RP now, but that's what I think I _should_ be doing anyway. Meanwhile, I did enjoy the R I "played" with a couple of weekends ago (they had no RPs), though my primary mission was to try out Fv mode (which I was delighted to see is on the M6 II).


Makes sense to me. The differences between aps-c and ff are pretty minor unless you are making really big prints.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Well said Sporgon.
> 
> I love the M22 and the EF 35 f2 IS. Indeed if I could have only one lens (depending on camera) it would be one of those two. I currently favor the 35 f2 but that is because I use FF a lot more than crop.



Yes I've got the 35/2 IS too, in fact I bought one after you'd been on here shouting its praises a few years ago. Even though you know I hate putting my hand in my pocket to buy gear I can't bear you any ill will has it's a peach of a lens  . It sings on the 5DS.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 17, 2019)

BillB said:


> Makes sense to me. The differences between aps-c and ff are pretty minor unless you are making really big prints.



Depends on your definition of 'really big' but in a nutshell I'd say the wider you go the more the larger sensor pulls ahead in what I call 'breio', that is the freshness, clarity of the finer details in the image. Splitting hairs of course.


----------



## BillB (Sep 17, 2019)

Sporgon said:


> Depends on your definition of 'really big' but in a nutshell I'd say the wider you go the more the larger sensor pulls ahead in what I call 'breio', that is the freshness, clarity of the finer details in the image. Splitting hairs of course.


Another piece of the puzzle is the lens. For a given print size, any limitation in the lens are going to be magnified more printing an aps-c image compared to a full frame.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 17, 2019)

A good friend and I often shoot events for charity, they are almost always lighting challenged and we are often not allowed to use flash. She just bought (this week) a new 5D MkIV as she was fed up of the noise she was getting at regular sized output when compared to my ff camera.

The more you do something specific and compare it to others using a different solution the easier it is to see the differences. Now do regular people see differences between my shots and hers? Who knows, but she is no longer happy with her crop camera output for her uses.



BillB said:


> Makes sense to me. The differences between aps-c and ff are pretty minor unless you are making really big prints.


----------



## tomsop (Sep 18, 2019)

I was so frustrated by the video because they kept criticizing it but the point of criticism should be to direct us to better gear for the same general price range if it exists or tell us we need to spend $3K to satisfy their high standards. It gets ridiculous when criticism is not put into context as to what alternatives they suggest we pursue. Everything is compromised to satisfy a price point or we would all have computers with too much HD space and CPU power, etc. I am going to just ignore what they say and wait a couple weeks until people stat posting samples with the lenses I use.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 18, 2019)

tomsop said:


> I was so frustrated by the video because they kept criticizing it but the point of criticism should be to direct us to better gear for the same general price range if it exists or tell us we need to spend $3K to satisfy their high standards. It gets ridiculous when criticism is not put into context as to what alternatives they suggest we pursue. Everything is compromised to satisfy a price point or we would all have computers with too much HD space and CPU power, etc. I am going to just ignore what they say and wait a couple weeks until people stat posting samples with the lenses I use.



One thing that handicapped me was I simply don't know the other brands' lineups at all. So if they compare the M6II to the Olyfukinony XYZ, I have no idea if it's a fair comparison--the XYZ may have a similar cost, or it may be an $8000 camera.

If I recall they DID say it was a good camera for what it's priced at.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> A good friend and I often shoot events for charity, they are almost always lighting challenged and we are often not allowed to use flash. She just bought (this week) a new 5D MkIV as she was fed up of the noise she was getting at regular sized output when compared to my ff camera.
> 
> The more you do something specific and compare it to others using a different solution the easier it is to see the differences. Now do regular people see differences between my shots and hers? Who knows, but she is no longer happy with her crop camera output for her uses.



I went through this same process as well; when I started I was adamant about sticking with crop (you may even see it in my old posts)...until suddenly I found myself frustrated with the noisy, soft images I kept getting indoors, even after spending top dollar on high-end lenses, and wanted better. Turns out the move I was resisting all along turned out to be the only move I had left to make.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 18, 2019)

Exactly, we are our worst enemy when it comes to critiquing our own output, we notice things about the technical details normal viewers don't but we are still driven to make it better. Not saying crop camera output doesn't have its place, indeed I am very happy with my M5 on many occasions and in focal length limited situations crop cameras hold several good advantages over bigger sensors. But to be sure, FF sensor advantages are not just 'for big prints'.



Act444 said:


> I went through this same process as well; when I started I was adamant about sticking with crop (you may even see it in my old posts)...until suddenly I found myself frustrated with the noisy, soft images I kept getting indoors, even after spending top dollar on high-end lenses, and wanted better. Turns out the move I was resisting all along turned out to be the only move I had left to make.


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Sep 18, 2019)

Has anyone actually played around with the raw files? I've mucked around with DPR and Fro Knows Photos raws and I have to say I am very impressed! For one I think ISO up to 12800 looks pretty good and easily usable for the likes of uploading to Instagram and secondly I don't know what the actual dynamic range is going to be but playing around with some ISO 100 files and being stupid in Lightroom and moving exposure slider to +5 I see absolutely no banding or blotchy-ness in the shadow areas just nice uniform luminous noise! In this regard I think it might be even better than my 5D4? The M6II is going to be a day 1 purchase for me.

Still wish Canon had added IBIS and slightly deeper buffer though, would've made it pretty much the perfect super compact mirrorless APS-C camera (for us still shooters haha).


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 19, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Exactly, we are our worst enemy when it comes to critiquing our own output, we notice things about the technical details normal viewers don't but we are still driven to make it better. Not saying crop camera output doesn't have its place, indeed I am very happy with my M5 on many occasions and in focal length limited situations crop cameras hold several good advantages over bigger sensors. But to be sure, FF sensor advantages are not just 'for big prints'.



For me, it’s simple.

R and EF series and lenses are large and expensive , M series and lenses are small and lower cost.

FF has lower sampling density, crop has higher.

I like them both, and let the situation decide which to use.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 19, 2019)

basketballfreak6 said:


> Has anyone actually played around with the raw files? I've mucked around with DPR and Fro Knows Photos raws and I have to say I am very impressed! For one I think ISO up to 12800 looks pretty good and easily usable for the likes of uploading to Instagram and secondly I don't know what the actual dynamic range is going to be but playing around with some ISO 100 files and being stupid in Lightroom and moving exposure slider to +5 I see absolutely no banding or blotchy-ness in the shadow areas just nice uniform luminous noise! In this regard I think it might be even better than my 5D4? The M6II is going to be a day 1 purchase for me.
> 
> Still wish Canon had added IBIS and slightly deeper buffer though, would've made it pretty much the perfect super compact mirrorless APS-C camera (for us still shooters haha).



_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.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 19, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Exactly, we are our worst enemy when it comes to critiquing our own output, we notice things about the technical details normal viewers don't but we are still driven to make it better. Not saying crop camera output doesn't have its place, indeed I am very happy with my M5 on many occasions and in focal length limited situations crop cameras hold several good advantages over bigger sensors. But to be sure, FF sensor advantages are not just 'for big prints'.



It was the reach. Or at least the perception of it. I had gotten so used to the telephoto coverage on my crop-sensor camera that I was hesitant to give it up. Even after jumping into the FF world back in 2013 (and seeing the IQ benefits!), it still took another 3-4 years for me to abandon crop DSLRs completely. I continued to use the 7D (and later, 7D2) for action and animal photography until an epiphany I had when I reviewed a squirrel pic I took with the 5D while on another task and realizing it blew away anything that ever came out of the 7D

Now is there still a place for crop? Definitely, that's why I have my M6. Smaller, lighter, etc. I just no longer feel crop-sensor IQ is worth the bulk/weight of a DSLR setup, even for the speed of the 7D series. I've learned to live within the limitations of the 5D4 for that (I've considered the 1D but it's just too much bulk/noise and my action shooting is too infrequent to justify the price tag). When portability is a priority or when attending events with camera restrictions, that's the niche the M6 fills.


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Sep 19, 2019)

SteveC said:


> _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 (Sep 19, 2019)

basketballfreak6 said:


> 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.


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Sep 19, 2019)

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.


----------



## OneSnark (Sep 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> 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 (Sep 21, 2019)

OneSnark said:


> 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 (Sep 21, 2019)

SteveC said:


> 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


----------



## Rocky (Sep 21, 2019)

“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.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 21, 2019)

Rocky said:


> “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 (Sep 21, 2019)

SteveC said:


> 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.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Sep 21, 2019)

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.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 21, 2019)

Eagle Eye said:


> 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:









Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com













Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com













Canon EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## OneSnark (Sep 21, 2019)

Rocky said:


> “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 (Sep 22, 2019)

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.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 22, 2019)

JohnC said:


> 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 (Sep 22, 2019)

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 (Sep 22, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> 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 (Sep 22, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> 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


----------



## SteveC (Sep 22, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> 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 (Sep 22, 2019)

SteveC said:


> 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 (Sep 22, 2019)

SteveC said:


> 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.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 22, 2019)

I'm not sure why camera makers insist on forcing mirror-less bodies into 1950's era form factors. Makes no sense to me.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 22, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I'm not sure why camera makers insist on forcing mirror-less bodies into 1950's era form factors. Makes no sense to me.



I'm not sure what alternative you have in mind (might be interesting to find out)...but one thing that a form factor must do is fit the human hand (or hands).


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 22, 2019)

SteveC said:


> I'm not sure what alternative you have in mind (might be interesting to find out)...but one thing that a form factor must do is fit the human hand (or hands).


An off-body EVF similar to a camcorder would be a good start. A rotating grip might be another. I get the ergonomics thing but sometimes I think it has more to do with style rather than substance but that's a rant for another day I suppose. Good luck with the new cam. Let us know how it works out.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 22, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> An off-body EVF similar to a camcorder would be a good start. A rotating grip might be another. I get the ergonomics thing but sometimes I think it has more to do with style rather than substance but that's a rant for another day I suppose. Good luck with the new cam. Let us know how it works out.



I could see both of those, actually. (The the mechanics of the latter could be an interesting engineering challenge--but at least they won't have to work around spaces either side of the imaging area where there are the two ends of a strip of film! Maybe it could have been done any time after switching to digital.)

For what it's worth, the EVF on the Mk6 II seems to project backwards from the body a ways, making it easier to get your eye up against it. (I've not had the chance to play with that yet. Maybe when my local brick and mortar gets the M6 II in.) Yesterday, I felt a little bit like a contortionist for some reason using the M50 trying to get my eye close enough to get the viewfinder to switch on. I had never noticed that before. Maybe the sun was coming in from just the right angle (to the left and behind me) and hitting the sensor. My having a fairly big nose doesn't help either.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 23, 2019)

I try my M50 to day. The view finder turns on when my eye is about 1” from the eye piece.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 24, 2019)

Correction: I try my M50 to day. The view finder turns on when my eye is about 1.5” (38 mm) from the rubber light shield of the eye piece.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 24, 2019)

I've known the view finder (under other circumstances, like indoors) to turn on when I am trying to use the two finger gesture to zoom in, e.g., whilst checking focus or reviewing pictures. I tend to use my right hand for this, and the index finger ends up "northwest" of my thumb (so that my wrist is straight), thus the bottom of my hand gets too close to the viewfinder.

[edit--northeast to northwest, I seem to be getting east/west "dyslexia" more and more these days.]


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Sep 24, 2019)

JohnC said:


> 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.



Yea I mentioned that earlier too I thought the files coming out of the new sensor looked great! Going off what I can see so far people measuring the sensor on 90D the actual dynamic range hasn't really changed but I thought when you lift shadows it looked noticeably better to the point where I think it might be better than my 5D4! Playing with raw files from 2 different sources (Fro Knows Photos and DP Review) applying +5 to exposure in Lightroom the shadow areas look remarkably clean no banding no blotches just nice luminous noise.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 24, 2019)

basketballfreak6 said:


> Yea I mentioned that earlier too I thought the files coming out of the new sensor looked great! Going off what I can see so far people measuring the sensor on 90D the actual dynamic range hasn't really changed but I thought when you lift shadows it looked noticeably better to the point where I think it might be better than my 5D4! Playing with raw files from 2 different sources (Fro Knows Photos and DP Review) applying +5 to exposure in Lightroom the shadow areas look remarkably clean no banding no blotches just nice luminous noise.



I looked at the shadows as well and I agree, didn't see any banding in the examples I looked at. Granted the images I found probably weren't what I would choose to testing that but the results looked pretty good regardless. Detail looked really good even at relatively high ISO (which I don't shoot much of anyway) and it seemed to sharpen up easily which was the biggest issue I had with Fuji RAF files.


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Sep 25, 2019)

JohnC said:


> I looked at the shadows as well and I agree, didn't see any banding in the examples I looked at. Granted the images I found probably weren't what I would choose to testing that but the results looked pretty good regardless. Detail looked really good even at relatively high ISO (which I don't shoot much of anyway) and it seemed to sharpen up easily which was the biggest issue I had with Fuji RAF files.



Yea ISO at 6400 looked solid from DPR and I tried pushing it by 1 stop and file absolutely held up as well. Saw some very sharp looking portraits from Camera Labs samples too with the 32mm f/1.4. This new sensor is looking absolutely fantastic can't wait to see the FF version of it!


----------



## Rocky (Sep 25, 2019)

SteveC said:


> I've known the view finder (under other circumstances, like indoors) to turn on when I am trying to use the two finger gesture to zoom in, e.g., whilst checking focus or reviewing pictures. I tend to use my right hand for this, and the index finger ends up "northwest" of my thumb (so that my wrist is straight), thus the bottom of my hand gets too close to the viewfinder.
> 
> [edit--northeast to northwest, I seem to be getting east/west "dyslexia" more and more these days.]


 The sensor is at the right side of the view finder window. Anything that come close to it will turn on the view finder and disable the touch screen when you are reviewing the picture.


----------

