While the early reviews of the M6 Mark II are good, I'm curious if the camera would be a good choice for chasing wildlife. Mainly birds in flight.
I have a 5D Mark III and have been looking for something more compact. While I wish Canon would beef up their M series lens line-up, I'm okay with using an adapter. The EVF would take a bit to get used to but it's not the end of the world.
I have no doubt the camera will handle landscapes and family pictures, just curious if the AF is strong enough to keep up with osprey, hawks, herons and such.
I suppose we'll have to see how the M6 II compares to the 90D, but that EVF hanging out and the tiny battery are not so conducive to long days in the field. Of course specs are often underestimates, but 250 frames with the EVF on the M6 II vs. 1860 frames on the 90D is a major difference.
AF tracking is excellent with the M6 II but isn't as fast as the 90D, this is due to the M6 II using dual pixel AF. Dual pixel AF, while extremely accurate, is not known for being super fast, at least not fast enough for quick birds in flight. For general wildlife, even larger slower birds, the AF should be more than ample but I wouldn't trust it for many BIF situations. Herons would probably be ok, Osprey not so much.
EB-1 wrote:
I suppose we'll have to see how the M6 II compares to the 90D, but that EVF hanging out and the tiny battery are not so conducive to long days in the field. Of course specs are often underestimates, but 250 frames with the EVF on the M6 II vs. 1860 frames on the 90D is a major difference.
EBH
---------------------------------------------
AvianScott wrote:
AF tracking is excellent with the M6 II but isn't as fast as the 90D, this is due to the M6 II using dual pixel AF. Dual pixel AF, while extremely accurate, is not known for being super fast, at least not fast enough for quick birds in flight. For general wildlife, even larger slower birds, the AF should be more than ample but I wouldn't trust it for many BIF situations. Herons would probably be ok, Osprey not so much.
Yes, there are some obvious limitations on the M6II with "action" like EVF instead of OVF, battery life and slower AF tracking due to lack of PDAF.
On the other side, the higher frame rate and precapture buffer (? if I remember correctly) of M6 II could help in tricky situations where PDAF isn't going to do well anyway. Sometimes firing a short but very fast burst may be better than a slower burst with lousy PDAF tracking, e.g. with my dragonflies 7 fps on the 80D has a tiny chance of having one of the frames in focus, with 20 fps on M6 II my chances of getting at least one well focused image would be much improved. And for EVF/OVF one has to balance the slight delay and less detailed rendering of the EVF against the blackout of the OVF when using high frame rate. Difficult to predict what works best in practice, probably depends a lot on the subject/situation.
as mentioned by Technic above, i can see that precapture buffer could be handy in certain situations waiting for the decisive moment, say a kingfisher diving into a pond or a bird lifting off.
also a truly silent mode would be useful as well, -even in silent mode my 7D2 can scare the birds nearby.
coppertop wrote:
While the early reviews of the M6 Mark II are good, I'm curious if the camera would be a good choice for chasing wildlife. Mainly birds in flight.
I have a 5D Mark III and have been looking for something more compact. While I wish Canon would beef up their M series lens line-up, I'm okay with using an adapter. The EVF would take a bit to get used to but it's not the end of the world.
I have no doubt the camera will handle landscapes and family pictures, just curious if the AF is strong enough to keep up with osprey, hawks, herons and such.
I prefer to shoot wildlife through a finder that's up to my eye, especially when shooting handheld (which I prefer). This rules out the M6-series for wildlife, for me (the hot shoe finders suck). Also, based on the M5 finder blackout, which is unacceptable for tracking moving subjects, I haven't yet seen the required performance from Canon M-series mirrorless cameras.
jcolwell wrote:
I prefer to shoot wildlife through a finder that's up to my eye, especially when shooting handheld (which I prefer). This rules out the M6-series for wildlife, for me (the hot shoe finders suck). Also, based on the M5 finder blackout, which is unacceptable for tracking moving subjects, I haven't yet seen the required performance from Canon M-series mirrorless cameras.
I believe the Canon M6 II has a detachable viewfinder
(which may or may not suck)
jcolwell wrote:
I prefer to shoot wildlife through a finder that's up to my eye, especially when shooting handheld (which I prefer). This rules out the M6-series for wildlife, for me (the hot shoe finders suck). Also, based on the M5 finder blackout, which is unacceptable for tracking moving subjects, I haven't yet seen the required performance from Canon M-series mirrorless cameras.
Yes, the finder would be a decisive factor and I'm not holding my breath for blackout or general lag given that very few recent ML cameras are good enough for fast wildlife action (and even then I guess they still have a disadvantage regarding resolution and DR for viewing the scene, compared to OVF).
While I'm pretty sure the M6II would have some advantage in special situations, I don't think I would buy a (second) body with such price level for a niche application - even less so if there is no primary body that is excellent for action. But I can see the value of the camera for subjects like landscape and architecture (more resolution is always nice) or people (better eye AF etc.). The pre-capture buffer might also be nice for e.g. small children or pets for those unexpected moments, depending on implementation of the feature.
I would be using the hot-shoe EVF most of the time. Just not ready to use the rear screen as the viewfinder on a regular basis. I would have preferred Canon kept the on-camera EVF but everything I've read about the second generation detachable EVF has been on the positive side.
The biggest challenge with the M6 MKII is probably behind the camera. I've shot DSLR or SLR cameras for over 30 years. I've dabbled with four-thirds bodies but my muscle memory rests with the traditional bodies.
The 5D MKIII still serves me well. I'm not looking for something to replace the 5D, but I would like something more portable. An option that is capable of shooting everything from wildlife to macro to family snapshots.
I think my hesitation is likely taking the leap with something dramatically different from what I'm used to. Again thanks for the advice.
I would be using the hot-shoe EVF most of the time. Just not ready to use the rear screen as the viewfinder on a regular basis. I would have preferred Canon kept the on-camera EVF but everything I've read about the second generation detachable EVF has been on the positive side.
The biggest challenge with the M6 MKII is probably behind the camera. I've shot DSLR or SLR cameras for over 30 years. I've dabbled with four-thirds bodies but my muscle memory rests with the traditional bodies.
The 5D MKIII still serves me well. I'm not looking for something to replace the 5D, but I would like something more portable. An option that is capable of shooting everything from wildlife to macro to family snapshots.
I think my hesitation is likely taking the leap with something dramatically different from what I'm used to. Again thanks for the advice.
mirrorless is certainly more portable with wider and "pancake' lens
Maybe buy from one of the big NY online camera retailers, they offer a 30 day return policy which makes it easy to evaluate new gear
In short yes. If someone you know has an M5, try that first or even rent one.
The shooting is a bit different with EVF, regardless if you move to an M6, A7III, G9, and such.
Just accept that there will positives and negatives, there will be minor changes in technique, and you should be fine. However the M6II outresolves all M glass but the EF-M 32mm f/1.4. Not that anyone should be using any M glass for BIF as a first choice. But it should serve as a point of consider whether your BIF lenses can make use of 30+ MP cameras. If you do not want to have to go that route then a used M5 might be a better solution at 24MP.
The M series lifespan is a short cul-de-sac. You might want to seriously look at non-Canon offerings. [NOTE to keep the flames down: I do landscape and BIF among other things. I keep an M5 in my daily bag and an A7RII for artistic outings. Not a fan boy of either company] I can't recommend anything in detail since I don't know your motivations for considering a move from a DSLR to an M6 specifically.
Brighttigger wrote:
In short yes. If someone you know has an M5, try that first or even rent one.
The shooting is a bit different with EVF, regardless if you move to an M6, A7III, G9, and such.
Just accept that there will positives and negatives, there will be minor changes in technique, and you should be fine. However the M6II outresolves all M glass but the EF-M 32mm f/1.4.
Not that anyone should be using any M glass for BIF as a first choice. But it should serve as a point of consider whether your BIF lenses can make use of 30+ MP cameras. If you do not want to have to go that route then a used M5 might be a better solution at 24MP.
The M series lifespan is a short cul-de-sac. You might want to seriously look at non-Canon offerings. [NOTE to keep the flames down: I do landscape and BIF among other things. I keep an M5 in my daily bag and an A7RII for artistic outings. Not a fan boy of either company] I can't recommend anything in detail since I don't know your motivations for considering a move from a DSLR to an M6 specifically....Show more →
My main BIF lenses are the 300mm f2.8 IS or the 100-400mm MKII. For macro, I shoot with the 100mm f2.8 and my "go to" lens for everyday type shots is the 28-105mm f4L or the 40mm pancake.
The M6 MKII has caught my eye for a lighter weight option for the times I don't want to carry the 5D MKIII. I'm particular to the Canon brand simply because of the glass I've collected. I'll still shoot with the 5D and really do not want to manage two sets of glass by going to a non-Canon mirrorless (which there are some great alternatives).
I did look at the M50 but the button layout of the M6 seems more appealing. The M50's price would be easier on the budget and I don't mind the lower MP count. Just need to sit down and see if there are any features the M6 MKII offers that the M5 doesn't.
coppertop wrote:
My main BIF lenses are the 300mm f2.8 IS or the 100-400mm MKII. For macro, I shoot with the 100mm f2.8 and my "go to" lens for everyday type shots is the 28-105mm f4L or the 40mm pancake.
The M6 MKII has caught my eye for a lighter weight option for the times I don't want to carry the 5D MKIII. I'm particular to the Canon brand simply because of the glass I've collected. I'll still shoot with the 5D and really do not want to manage two sets of glass by going to a non-Canon mirrorless (which there are some great alternatives).
I did look at the M50 but the button layout of the M6 seems more appealing. The M50's price would be easier on the budget and I don't mind the lower MP count. Just need to sit down and see if there are any features the M6 MKII offers that the M5 doesn't. ...Show more →
OK, check out the Canon M6 II
mirrorless with a long telephoto lens requires different handling techniques
The M series is great for using a 1.4x or 2x on the long lenses, like 150-600 and 100-400. Not for BIF but for any other type of wildlife shot, giving you capabilities none of the Canon DSLRs can give you! This is why I have an M50, to provide this kind of reach and AF.
i have something very similar for my 80d. insert the dummy battery in the camera. insert the other end to a USB power bank and i can shoot video all day.
The M5. Has integrated EVF. handles like a mirrorless DSLR, not a P&S.