# Here are a couple of Canon EOS M6 Mark II reviews



## canonnews (Nov 3, 2019)

> If you are a Canon RF user, even if you aren’t interested in buying the M6 Mark II you should be interested in the reviews as it’s a precursor to better performance on the EOS RF mount.  The M6 Mark II gives us a glance into a future world of high performance Canon mirrorless cameras.
> The M6 Mark II is quite the little camera, and I am certainly looking forward to it being in my greedy little hands soon.
> 
> Now onto the reviews.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## mclaren777 (Nov 3, 2019)

Everybody who was karting with their visor open should have been black flagged!

Also, I really hope Canon makes an M5 Mark II.


----------



## sdz (Nov 3, 2019)

mclaren777 said:


> Everybody who was karting with their visor open should have been black flagged!
> 
> Also, I really hope Canon makes an M5 Mark II.




I'm waiting for M5 II and the M50 II before deciding to upgrade or pass. I love my M50. I nearly always have it with me.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 3, 2019)

sdz said:


> I'm waiting for M5 II and the M50 II before deciding to upgrade or pass*.** I love my M50. I nearly always have it with me.*



Same here, with EF-M 32 it is hard to beat as small, lightweight, reliable allrounder - and I was oft shortly before pulling the trigger to order a 2nd body to replace the 200D because DPAF is mileslightyears ahead for cameras in the same price range.

I think something is in the pipe and will be released soon: the orange online giant hasn't the M50 bodies anymore (only as market place offer) and some photo equipment sellers here in Germany do not have it at least in their online shops.

So I will wait for the next generation of M cameras with built-in EVF which is essential for me (bright sunlight, better stabilization).

My guess: M5 ii with IBIS at 1200 EUR and M50 ii without at 700 EUR. No easy choice because I want to come back to two identical bodies soon (40D and 5D i (2nd hand)) were great cameras but heavy and clumsy if you lug around two of them. With two M50 and EF-M 32 plus 70-200 f/4 just a small photo backpack leaves enough room for some clothing in the photo compartment!


----------



## CafeAvian (Nov 3, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> Same here, with EF-M 32 it is hard to beat as small, lightweight, reliable allrounder - and I was oft shortly before pulling the trigger to order a 2nd body to replace the 200D because DPAF is mileslightyears ahead for cameras in the same price range.
> 
> I think something is in the pipe and will be released soon: the orange online giant hasn't the M50 bodies anymore (only as market place offer) and some photo equipment sellers here in Germany do not have it at least in their online shops.
> 
> ...



I hope you are right.


----------



## sulla (Nov 3, 2019)

I think it points to Canon splitting lines: RF-mount cameras for full-frame, M-mount cameras for APS-C. Makes sense to me.


----------



## dirk-jan (Nov 3, 2019)

sdz said:


> I'm waiting for M5 II and the M50 II before deciding to upgrade or pass. I love my M50. I nearly always have it with me.



So was I for a while, until about one and a half months ago, when I decided to buy the R as a replacement for my 6D and 7D (both mark I).
For all practical purposes, the R beats the original 7D hands down (did some action shooting during a corporate event, RIBs going quite fast over the water, and it kept up pretty well, black out didn't bother me, focus was fast enough though sometimes on the bow of RIB instead of the faces but I was more or less expecting that with the EF 400 5.6L and it being my first serious action photography with the camera).

Now, faster is always better, in most cases, but, while I was very sceptical about the R one year ago, I think Canon is on the right path in the land of mirrorless. Especially since the latest firmware update for the R. I'm lovin' it (to steal another company's slogan  )


----------



## AlanF (Nov 3, 2019)

canonnews said:


> Continue reading...
> 
> 
> I know CR hardly posts any reviews.. but I did say people have to put up with me while I'm helping Mr CR out



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.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Nov 3, 2019)

dirk-jan said:


> I think Canon is on the right path in the land of mirrorless. Especially since the latest firmware update for the R. I'm lovin' it (to steal another company's slogan  )



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.


----------



## mpb001 (Nov 3, 2019)

I use a 5DIV, but the M6II has my attention for a couple of reasons. The new sensor and the compactness of the camera. It doesn’t bother me to attach the EVF. The dilemma for me is just wait for the next generation of Canon FF sensors in a RPII or just wait to see what comes along. Ideally, I would like a compact FF for travel, but not interested in the sensor used in the RP.


----------



## analoggrotto (Nov 4, 2019)

Hype for the next generation RF Full Frame is practically deafening. Canon is making a lot of different moves about the map that everyone expects to intersect upon a camera mimicing the 5D's price point. This time next year, what will DPR be saying about Canon?


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Nov 4, 2019)

sulla said:


> I think it points to Canon splitting lines: RF-mount cameras for full-frame, M-mount cameras for APS-C. Makes sense to me.



It would make more sense if there was any cross-compatibility on lenses at all. But if you have an RF-mount full frame with RF lenses, they're useless on the EF-M mount APS-C camera. The only commonality to cross lenses back and forth is via EF mount - not exactly a sustainable option if Canon wants to sell RF mount lenses alongside their RF-mount bodies. Personally, I think that an APS-C RF-mount camera is inevitable at some point in the future. Not that I think that the EF-M mount is *******. Nay, I think that as long as it keeps on selling, Canon will keep on producing them. And from what I understand, the M line sells extremely well in Asia. But like everyone else here, that's nothing more than my own brand of educated guessing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 4, 2019)

EDIT: I see no mechanical or optical reason why there couldn't be an RF lens to EOS-M body adapter. The RF lens has a 20mm registry distance and the EF-M an 18mm distance, Ed Mika was making FD-EOS adapters thinner than 2mm years ago. As Illustrated below very well by koenkooi there cannot be an RF to M adapter, Canon have made it so and I believe that was deliberate. I am still very skeptical that there will be an RF APS camera but all any of us can do at this point is speculate.

Having said that I think the EOS-M series is fine for what it is, the best selling MILC system on the planet, and the clamor for exotic glass for it is just a niche thing populated by the same kinds of people that populate camera forums and so their opinions get amplified out of all proportion. I doubt if Canon see any benefit to APS-C RF bodies as they are selling the M in bulk to replace the Rebels and the enthusiasts need to be pushed into better profit margin FF RF line bodies.

Mind you the EF range still has some miles in it, the 1DX MkIII and the 5D MkV are both going to be hot items and will keep many actual users, as opposed to over opinionated and vocal wish listers, happy for years yet.


----------



## Joaquim (Nov 4, 2019)

mclaren777 said:


> Everybody who was karting with their visor open should have been black flagged!
> 
> Also, I really hope Canon makes an M5 Mark II.



I so agree with the last part. I love my little M5 and aside from accepting the lack of dual cards, I would definitely buy an M5ii. The AF-On button is a game changer apart from the speed an AF. I'll keep my Fujis purely for video then unless its a big event and I can't risk shooting to just one card.


----------



## Joaquim (Nov 4, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> Same here, with EF-M 32 it is hard to beat as small, lightweight, reliable allrounder - and I was oft shortly before pulling the trigger to order a 2nd body to replace the 200D because DPAF is mileslightyears ahead for cameras in the same price range.
> 
> I think something is in the pipe and will be released soon: the orange online giant hasn't the M50 bodies anymore (only as market place offer) and some photo equipment sellers here in Germany do not have it at least in their online shops.
> 
> ...


 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.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 4, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I see no mechanical or optical reason why there couldn't be an RF lens to EOS-M body adapter. The RF lens has a 20mm registry distance and the EF-M an 18mm distance, Ed Mika was making FD-EOS adapters thinner than 2mm years ago.
> [..]



The RF bayonet doesn't fit into the EF-M mount, so you lose more than 2mm due to that. Which means you need optics


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 4, 2019)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> It would make more sense if there was any cross-compatibility on lenses at all. But if you have an RF-mount full frame with RF lenses, they're useless on the EF-M mount APS-C camera. The only commonality to cross lenses back and forth is via EF mount - not exactly a sustainable option if Canon wants to sell RF mount lenses alongside their RF-mount bodies. Personally, I think that an APS-C RF-mount camera is inevitable at some point in the future. Not that I think that the EF-M mount is *******. Nay, I think that as long as it keeps on selling, Canon will keep on producing them. And from what I understand, the M line sells extremely well in Asia. But like everyone else here, that's nothing more than my own brand of educated guessing.



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.


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Nov 4, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 4, 2019)

Excellent point and I am happy to stand corrected. Canon have already decided there will be no system interoperability.



koenkooi said:


> The RF bayonet doesn't fit into the EF-M mount, so you lose more than 2mm due to that. Which means you need optics
> 
> View attachment 187371
> View attachment 187372


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 4, 2019)

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.


----------



## johnstraka (Nov 4, 2019)

Has something changed about the possibility of an M5 Mk II? Bunch of people in this thread talking like it's a possibility, but DPReview said Canon confirmed to them there won't be one.


----------



## Aregal (Nov 4, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2019)

Aregal said:


> 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.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 4, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2019)

scyrene said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2019)

Joaquim said:


> 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)


----------



## juststeve (Nov 4, 2019)

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 (Nov 4, 2019)

scyrene said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2019)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> 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
> 
> ...


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 (Nov 4, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2019)

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 (Nov 4, 2019)

canonnews said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2019)

AlanF said:


> If I have misinterpreted you it's because I don't understand what you are saying. What does "pixel AF accuracy" mean?


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.


----------



## canonnews (Nov 4, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2019)

canonnews said:


> 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.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 4, 2019)

canonnews said:


> 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.


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Nov 4, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 4, 2019)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> 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.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Nov 4, 2019)

analoggrotto said:


> Hype for the next generation RF Full Frame is practically deafening. Canon is making a lot of different moves about the map that everyone expects to intersect upon a camera mimicing the 5D's price point. This time next year, what will DPR be saying about Canon?


Who cares what DPR will say !!

The past few years, the better photographers have learned that real results put to use in the field make DPR or DXO pale by comparison.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 5, 2019)

sdz said:


> I'm waiting for M5 II and the M50 II before deciding to upgrade or pass. I love my M50. I nearly always have it with me.


Where di you get the ideas the M5 II is ever appearing? It''s dead. I'd rather they released an M5II equivalent as an RF mount camera not the dead-end EF-M mount. It would be a compelling camera if priced under $1K, with specs much better than say the Z50.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 5, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Where di you get the ideas the M5 II is ever appearing? It''s dead.



And your source of knowledge on this is...?



> I'd rather they released an M5II equivalent as an RF mount camera not the dead-end EF-M mount.



I suspect they will...unless you're thinking of them releasing it as an APS-C, then I think probably not. But that's only my opinion, and unlike you, I won't brand it as fact.


----------



## seasonascent (Nov 5, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> The RF bayonet doesn't fit into the EF-M mount, so you lose more than 2mm due to that. Which means you need optics


I don't see why the RF bayonet not fitting into the M mount would pose a problem for a simple RF-M adapter. Could you explain why you'd lose more than 2mm?


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 5, 2019)

seasonascent said:


> I don't see why the RF bayonet not fitting into the M mount would pose a problem for a simple RF-M adapter. Could you explain why you'd lose more than 2mm?


The photo posted illustrates that the RF lens mount can't come within 2mm of the M mount because the RF mouth is wider than the M mount. This means it is impossible to achieve the necessary offsets as the RF lens mount must be 2mm from the M mount flange and it physically can't, ergo a 'simple' adapter is not possible.


----------



## melgross (Nov 5, 2019)

seasonascent said:


> I don't see why the RF bayonet not fitting into the M mount would pose a problem for a simple RF-M adapter. Could you explain why you'd lose more than 2mm?



Seriously?

Since the mount for the R doesn’t fit into the M mount opening, you have to add that length to the length of the adapter. That means that there’s no infinity focus.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 5, 2019)

SteveC said:


> And your source of knowledge on this is...?



Well if you were asleep at the wheel, Canon has confirmed the M6 II replaces the M6 and M5. Here is a direct quoye from dpreview

"Canon's just officially launched the newest member of its APS-C mirrorless lineup, the EOS M6 Mark II. We were a little surprised to hear from Canon that the M6 II effectively replaces both the EOS M5 _and_ EOS M6 models, so you're looking at the newest flagship for the EOS M system"


----------



## AlanF (Nov 5, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Well if you were asleep at the wheel, Canon has confirmed the M6 II replaces the M6 and M5. Here is a direct quoye from dpreview
> 
> "Canon's just officially launched the newest member of its APS-C mirrorless lineup, the EOS M6 Mark II. We were a little surprised to hear from Canon that the M6 II effectively replaces both the EOS M5 _and_ EOS M6 models, so you're looking at the newest flagship for the EOS M system"


We all, well most of us, know that but as has been written many times here, we haven't heard that directly from Canon and so it has only hearsay credibility.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 5, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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).


Just as an information point, I'm using my M6 Mk II with a 100-400mm mk II and a 1.4x TC attached, and I'm perfectly happy to do so.

I'm 59 - so not in my first flush of youth - and the small camera size is much less of a "thing" than I thought it might be.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 5, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Just as an information point, I'm using my M6 Mk II with a 100-400mm mk II and a 1.4x TC attached, and I'm perfectly happy to do so.
> 
> I'm 59 - so not in my first flush of youth - and the small camera size is much less of a "thing" than I thought it might be.



When using the 100-400 are you using the big screen or the slide-on EVF? I'm attending a workshop this weekend with an RP plus rented 100-400 and was wondering if I should bring the M6II.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 5, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Just as an information point, I'm using my M6 Mk II with a 100-400mm mk II and a 1.4x TC attached, and I'm perfectly happy to do so.
> 
> I'm 59 - so not in my first flush of youth - and the small camera size is much less of a "thing" than I thought it might be.


Young man, at 59, you are in the youth wing of CR. Many of us are in your father's (if he was a young one) generation.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 5, 2019)

seasonascent said:


> I don't see why the RF bayonet not fitting into the M mount would pose a problem for a simple RF-M adapter. Could you explain why you'd lose more than 2mm?



Because the throat diameter of the RF mount is larger than the throat diameter of the EF-M mount, and the bayonet on the RF mount extends more than 2mm behind the flange. The bayonet of an RF lens can't fit inside the throat of an EF-M camera, so the flange of the RF lens is further than 2mm from the flange of the EF-M camera when pressed directly against it.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 5, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> When using the 100-400 are you using the big screen or the slide-on EVF? I'm attending a workshop this weekend with an RP plus rented 100-400 and was wondering if I should bring the M6II.


EVF, Koenkool - I've got the EVF-DC2, which is to all intents and purposes a permanent fixture on the camera now - and I have to say that it is good enough that I never find myself thinking about it: for all I appreciate a good OVF, the EVF really "gets out of the way" and just does the job it's there to do.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 5, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Young man, at 59, you are in the youth wing of CR. Many of us are in your father's (if he was a young one) generation.


Aye, I don't think of myself as "old" - just old_*er*_..!



I have to admit though that (partly because I've got a frozen left shoulder) I'm quickly coming to appreciate the lack of weight of the M6 Mk II/100-400mm Mk II combo compared with my 1D x/500mm f4 Mk II, especially as I always shoot handheld either way.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 5, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Aye, I don't think of myself as "old" - just old_*er*_..!
> 
> 
> 
> I have to admit though that (partly because I've got a frozen left shoulder) I'm quickly coming to appreciate the lack of weight of the M6 Mk II/100-400mm Mk II combo compared with my 1D x/500mm f4 Mk II, especially as I always shoot handheld either way.


Seriously, you are going down from a huge weight combo. I have been using the 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC on the 5DSR on walks in preference to the 400mm DO II to save a few 100 gm, and now have shaved off more with the 90D and dropping the TC.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 5, 2019)

AlanF said:


> We all, well most of us, know that but as has been written many times here, we haven't heard that directly from Canon and so it has only hearsay credibility.



So were you expecting a personal email form Mr Mitarai confirming this. Or maybe dpreview just lied. Even this site dropped all mention of M5 II very quickly after a few weeks on insisting it's coming. Don't get me wrong I wanted an M5 II, but the more I think about I don't want EF-M system, the same camera in RF mount would be a killer and future proof.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 5, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> So were you expecting a personal email form Mr Mitarai confirming this. Or maybe dpreview just lied. Even this site dropped all mention of M5 II very quickly after a few weeks on insisting it's coming. Don't get me wrong I wanted an M5 II, but the more I think about I don't want EF-M system, the same camera in RF mount would be a killer and future proof.



No, but if it were reliable info surely Canon would have said it to other places, not _just_ to dpreview. Or put out a press release.

Instead we got a comment, possibly mis-remembered by someone at dpreview (and that's assuming that bunch of Canon haters _isn't_ lying), that's utterly and completely unverified, but people seem to insist it's the gospel truth and will even go so far as to belittle those who don't believe it...as you did to sdz.

But even if a Canon rep _did in fact _say that the M6-II "replaces the M5 and M6" and _did in fact _know what he was talking about, all that that means is that they are discontinuing the M5 as well as the M6 (original). It does not mean they're not ever going to come out with an M5-II; it doesn't even mean that they don't already plan to do so.


----------



## Alastair Norcross (Nov 6, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> 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.


This sounds right. But what you have to remember is that at the distances where it defaults to face-detect, DOF is more than large enough that the eyes are perfectly in focus anyway, even at F1.4.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 6, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> So were you expecting a personal email form Mr Mitarai confirming this. Or maybe dpreview just lied. Even this site dropped all mention of M5 II very quickly after a few weeks on insisting it's coming. Don't get me wrong I wanted an M5 II, but the more I think about I don't want EF-M system, the same camera in RF mount would be a killer and future proof.


A random comment that - if it was said at all (DPR, remember) - in all likelihood came from some lowly Canon twonk with zero authority to make "official" pronouncements, is not compelling evidence of Canon's direction of travel.


----------



## analoggrotto (Nov 7, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Who cares what DPR will say !!
> 
> The past few years, the better photographers have learned that real results put to use in the field make DPR or DXO pale by comparison.



I only mention the yoga-pants fire that is DPR in sarcastic jest. Rishi can get lost.


----------



## McRphoto (Nov 7, 2019)

Look nice. I use my M5 on trekking and in my kayak. I'm not very tempted by a removable view finder. Don't want to loose it. I use it primary for landscape and wild life. If there's no M5 mkII coming up there other alternatives out there. I'm very surprised of my self and I'm thinking about Olympus for this job.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> EVF, Koenkool - I've got the EVF-DC2, which is to all intents and purposes a permanent fixture on the camera now - and I have to say that it is good enough that I never find myself thinking about it: for all I appreciate a good OVF, the EVF really "gets out of the way" and just does the job it's there to do.



So how do you trigger/control flashes with the EVF attached to the hot shoe?


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> So were you expecting a personal email form Mr Mitarai confirming this. Or maybe dpreview just lied. Even this site dropped all mention of M5 II very quickly after a few weeks on insisting it's coming. Don't get me wrong I wanted an M5 II, but the more I think about I don't want EF-M system, the same camera in RF mount would be a killer and future proof.



Nothing is future proof. Absolutely nothing.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2019)

SteveC said:


> No, but if it were reliable info surely Canon would have said it to other places, not _just_ to dpreview. Or put out a press release.
> 
> Instead we got a comment, possibly mis-remembered by someone at dpreview (and that's assuming that bunch of Canon haters _isn't_ lying), that's utterly and completely unverified, but people seem to insist it's the gospel truth and will even go so far as to belittle those who don't believe it...as you did to sdz.
> 
> But even if a Canon rep _did in fact _say that the M6-II "replaces the M5 and M6" and _did in fact _know what he was talking about, all that that means is that they are discontinuing the M5 as well as the M6 (original). It does not mean they're not ever going to come out with an M5-II; it doesn't even mean that they don't already plan to do so.



Canon, to the best of my knowledge, has not in the past 30+ years made a single press release about a product they had in development that they decided to _not _put on the market. They just don't do that.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 7, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon, to the best of my knowledge, has not in the past 30+ years made a single press release about a product they had in development that they decided to _not _put on the market. They just don't do that.



Which supports my point. We know absolutely _nothing _about this question (the M5 mk II). Far from Mr. Majestik's certainty--to the point of rudeness--that it will never come out.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 7, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Which supports my point. We know absolutely _nothing _about this question (the M5 mk II). Far from Mr. Majestik's certainty--to the point of rudeness--that it will never come out.



By your logic we will never know, because thirty years from now Canon will still have made no announcement concerning an M5 Mark II


----------



## SteveC (Nov 8, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> By your logic we will never know, because thirty years from now Canon will still have made no announcement concerning an M5 Mark II



Or we WILL know, because they will have come out with one.

But if they never say anything, it's your judgment call as to when you should decide it's never going to happen, or alternatively (if you are one of the many who hope it does) when you should give up on it and move on with life. 

There's simply no call at this early date for someone like Mr Majestik to belittle people who haven't leaped to conclusions.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 8, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Or we WILL know, because they will have come out with one.
> 
> But if they never say anything, it's your judgment call as to when you should decide it's never going to happen, or alternatively (if you are one of the many who hope it does) when you should give up on it and move on with life.
> 
> There's simply no call at this early date for someone like Mr Majestik to belittle people who haven't leaped to conclusions.



Yet there's equally no call for you to belittle folks who accept trusted sources, who have provided accurate information in the past, that it isn't going to happen.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 8, 2019)

Who is the trusted source? dpreviews?


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 8, 2019)

RP is small enough and cheap enough. Replace the sensor with something like in R and up the FPS number to 5. Keep selling under $1000. Here is my wallet.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 8, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> So how do you trigger/control flashes with the EVF attached to the hot shoe?


Never used a flash in my life - natural light wildlife photographers in the UK have no tradition of using flash.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 8, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Yet there's equally no call for you to belittle folks who accept trusted sources, who have provided accurate information in the past, that it isn't going to happen.


DPR is a trusted resource for Canon information now?

Oh - and Steve calling out Mr M's pronouncements doesn't make him the bad guy here.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 8, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> By your logic we will never know, because thirty years from now Canon will still have made no announcement concerning an M5 Mark II


That makes no sense whatsoever. You really are spoiling for a fight today, aren't you?


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 9, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> DPR is a trusted resource for Canon information now?
> 
> Oh - and Steve calling out Mr M's pronouncements doesn't make him the bad guy here.



DPR is not the *only* source that says Canon is not going to offer an EOS M5 Mark II.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 9, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> That makes no sense whatsoever. You really are spoiling for a fight today, aren't you?



If someone *never* announces a non-product, then we'll *never* get an official announcement from that entity for products that are not brought to market. Why is it so hard to grasp that concept?


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 9, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Who is the trusted source? dpreviews?



You talking to me? You talking to ME?


----------

