I recently got the M50 Mark II and I honestly love it!
I had the M5 which when I got it at launch felt like such a great camera but in terms of AF, it is now showing its age. I feel the M series has so much potential and I enjoy using it but altering owning and using bodies like the A7III and R6 the M5’s AF was frustrating for me.
I feel the M50 Mark II’s AF is much closer to my R6 and I can happily use it without feeling like it’s a big step down. I will say I wish it had IBIS, I’ve become so used to dragging the shutter on the A7III and R6 that I often go too slow of a shutter speed on the M50 Mark II.
The only other annoyance is the lack of IR sensor. Even the R6 has one so I need to buy the BR-E1 just for the R6. Here’s a few photos with the M50 Mark II.
TeamSpeed wrote:
A speedbooster has nothing to do with AF. But it will get your M50 even closer to performing to your R6.
Looks interesting but tbh I don’t think it would be worth it for me! The only EF lens I own is the Tamron 100-400mm which I wouldn’t use on the M50 II and I don’t plan on buying any EF lenses in the future either, it’s RF and EF-M only for me!
I use all my EF on my M50, so it works well for me. Even my 100-400II with teleconverters, etc...
It is the only high density crop sensor body I have, so it works very well for wildlife at 560mm and 800mm. I use the speedbooster with my wider EF lenses like the 24-70 or primes where again I could use the dense sensor attributes.
TeamSpeed wrote:
I use all my EF on my M50, so it works well for me. Even my 100-400II with teleconverters, etc...
It is the only high density crop sensor body I have, so it works very well for wildlife at 560mm and 800mm. I use the speedbooster with my wider EF lenses like the 24-70 or primes where again I could use the dense sensor attributes.
Yeah would be worth it for you since you have a lot of EF lenses, I sold all mine off quite some time ago
I may give the 100-400mm a try one time though as when I used the M5 is was painfully hard to use compared to the R6.
bcguy wrote:
I like that first photo. It's good to see someone enjoying their camera.
Thanks and I was impressed myself at the depth the 22mm f/2 provided for that image! It's always fun having a new camera!
rmhh wrote:
Very nice photos and camera. (Just remember to pocket spare batteries when you go out.)
Thanks and yeah already got a spare battery, although I don't shoot a load and always turn the camera off when I'm not using it so they generally last quite a while.
Man, I started looking into the M50 II... so annoying that Canon didn't produce an M6 II.
Coming from an M5, which I did find frustrating during some portrait shooting over the weekend, choices are either to lose control points (M50 II) or lose the ability to have a viewfinder and an external flash at the same time (M6 II).
johnctharp wrote:
Man, I started looking into the M50 II... so annoying that Canon didn't produce an M6 II.
Coming from an M5, which I did find frustrating during some portrait shooting over the weekend, choices are either to lose control points (M50 II) or lose the ability to have a viewfinder and an external flash at the same time (M6 II).
POR QUE NO LOS DOS
Yeah I do admit that I miss some of the dials from the M5 but I find with touch screens, it’s often faster to use that to change settings which is what I do. Although since I own the R6, I keep reaching for buttons that aren’t there on both bodies now.
For me I wanted the better AF (I would consider the M50 II almost as good as the R6 but the M5 to be significantly worse) and the fully articulating screen. Even if they added the M50 II’s AF and fully articulating screen to a M5 II I would have been really happy with it!
TeamSpeed wrote:
The M50 eye AF is not to the caliber at all of the R6, that is for sure. Spot or single point AF might be pretty close however. And no IBIS...
The M50 Mark II does have Eye AF in Servo though and I find it tracks really well! IBIS is something I definitely do miss though and wish it was included..
Photosbydlee wrote:
The M50 Mark II does have Eye AF in Servo though and I find it tracks really well! IBIS is something I definitely do miss though and wish it was included..
That's pretty much my dream M5 II right there. R6 AF and IBIS (and processing), M5 / M6-style body. Big thing is being able to leverage the stellar EF-M lenses, for which no real competitors exist.
Like, seriously, I'd buy into Fujifilm or Sony if I could get those few lenses in a reasonably sized and priced package. It's like Canon knew exactly what they were doing, enticing both veteran photographers and newcomers, and just gave up along the way.
johnctharp wrote:
That's pretty much my dream M5 II right there. R6 AF and IBIS (and processing), M5 / M6-style body. Big thing is being able to leverage the stellar EF-M lenses, for which no real competitors exist.
Like, seriously, I'd buy into Fujifilm or Sony if I could get those few lenses in a reasonably sized and priced package. It's like Canon knew exactly what they were doing, enticing both veteran photographers and newcomers, and just gave up along the way.
Yeah I was looking at getting a Sony or Fuji APSC body before getting the 32mm f/1.4 but when I looked at both systems, there was always something I wasn’t quite happy about. To me the 22mm pancake is a huge selling point of the M Mount since it’s so tiny and I do love 35mm equivalent focal length.
Fuji bodies are really nice but also quite large and expensive compared the M series bodies from what I’ve seen.
Tamron have just announced a 11-20mm f/2.8 for Sony E mount (APSC), I really wish it could come to M mount too as that would be a very tempting lens for me.
Photosbydlee wrote:
Yeah I was looking at getting a Sony or Fuji APSC body before getting the 32mm f/1.4 but when I looked at both systems, there was always something I wasn’t quite happy about. To me the 22mm pancake is a huge selling point of the M Mount since it’s so tiny and I do love 35mm equivalent focal length.
That 32/1.4 and 22/2 have literally no equal. Fuji has a 23/2 I believe, and Sony a 24/2; the Fuji would be a good stand in if not for price, the Sony is a full-frame lens with some wild distortion. Admittedly the distortion of the Sony wouldn't likely be a deal-breaker on APS-C.
Of course neither are as pocketable as the 22/2, and other wildcard is the 11-22, which while alternatives exist, none are as small, optically excellent, or as affordable. Fuji probably wins here too just out of having a WR version of the lens and WR bodies, but they're proud of them!
Photosbydlee wrote:
Fuji bodies are really nice but also quite large and expensive compared the M series bodies from what I’ve seen.
They come in small and large, plasticy and weather resistant. Honestly this is the least of my complaints, though I'll agree that it's a valid one.
Photosbydlee wrote:
Tamron have just announced a 11-20mm f/2.8 for Sony E mount (APSC), I really wish it could come to M mount too as that would be a very tempting lens for me.
Great! A weather-resistant lens for a system that has no weather-resistant bodies
It's not like Sony doesn't have the same exact problem with their APS-C mirrorless lineup either.
Overall, Fuji'd probably have it for me. My biggest concerns are that I have a decent collection of EF lenses and adapting to Fuji isn't as fluid as it is to Sony (which isn't as fluid as it is to Canon EF-M and RF), and that Fuji's IBIS and video AF are not up to par relative to Canon's and Sony's best.
johnctharp wrote:
That 32/1.4 and 22/2 have literally no equal. Fuji has a 23/2 I believe, and Sony a 24/2; the Fuji would be a good stand in if not for price, the Sony is a full-frame lens with some wild distortion. Admittedly the distortion of the Sony wouldn't likely be a deal-breaker on APS-C.
Of course neither are as pocketable as the 22/2, and other wildcard is the 11-22, which while alternatives exist, none are as small, optically excellent, or as affordable. Fuji probably wins here too just out of having a WR version of the lens and WR bodies, but they're proud of them!...Show more →
Yeah the only similar lens I can see is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 but from images and reviews I've seen, the IQ isn't on the same level as the 32mm.
The EF-M mount has such good options and so much potential, if Canon had pushed it more from the start then I think it could be even more popular.
johnctharp wrote:
They come in small and large, plasticy and weather resistant. Honestly this is the least of my complaints, though I'll agree that it's a valid one.
Yeah and I remember here the X-T4 was around $2800 AUD when released for a body only which is the same price as a FF body and hard to justify IMO. Not that Fuji's are bad or anything, I just feel that if I can only spend a certain amount I'd go for FF if I need to spend that much.
johnctharp wrote:
Great! A weather-resistant lens for a system that has no weather-resistant bodies
It's not like Sony doesn't have the same exact problem with their APS-C mirrorless lineup either.
Overall, Fuji'd probably have it for me. My biggest concerns are that I have a decent collection of EF lenses and adapting to Fuji isn't as fluid as it is to Sony (which isn't as fluid as it is to Canon EF-M and RF), and that Fuji's IBIS and video AF are not up to par relative to Canon's and Sony's best.
Yeah for APSC it's a bit difficult. Sony honestly don't care about APSC either, all their marketing material here is about "the full frame advantage" and when I went to the Sony events, the staff would always be pushing FF and convincing people not to use APSC lol.
But it will get your M50 even closer to performing to your R6. 
