I am reading a lot of speculation here and not a lot of facts, so I thought I would inject some facts.
The M6 Mark II has autofocusing capabilities that legitimately rival and potentially surpass what I can get on my 1DX Mark II. I began using it for recreational bird photography the moment I bought mine to snap photos when I'm walking my dog around the lake behind our house. It has difficulties in some conditions like back lighting silhouette shots when using the smallest AF point size, but if it can lock onto a subject in any tracking mode it has been rather incredible at retaining them in focus. The autofocus has been so good, in fact, that the 7D Mark II is retired for me. At the expense of weather sealing and grip, the M6 Mark II is an upgrade in every way for my needs. Granted, my bird photograpaphy is purely recreational and casual - I'm not crawling around out there waiting for the shot. In which case, I don't think that any non weather sealed camera would be a good options. I haven't pushed the camera into a motorsports setting yet, but from what I've seen from the camera myself and others have experienced, I am confident it will do rather well there too.
As for battery life, I really just don't know where the battery life rating numbers come from because they couldn't be further from the truth. I shot a wedding and used the M6 Mark II heavily to see what it could do. I was impressed with how it was doing so I just kept it slung over my shoulder and used it for details all throughout the wedding day. At some point I decided to see how far I could take the battery as the night pushed on and by the end of the reception, the battery completely died on me at 1,217 shots....1,217!? All images were taken in RAW and I used the back screen for review quite a bit. The EVF was used for roughly 70% of the photos and I was usually in high speed burst grabbing 2-3 images at a time and never a burst longer than 4 images that day. So to say I was impressed would be an understatement. Considering the fact I had multiple opportunities to use the USB battery charger - I could have probably shot the entire day with it.
Moving forward from that experience, I've taken it on three heavy outings where I was only shooting birds and once on a vacation. I was getting 400-800 images and didn't even dent the battery gauge yet, so I theoretically could have exceeded 1000 images regularly. At this point, I am confidently packing just one spare battery and my USB battery bank for a full day of shooting.
Thanks for sharing this experience with the M6II. It sounds promising I have to say. I want to replace my 7DII but haven't figured out yet with what: the 90D, EOS-R, M6II, or just wait longer. I like the mirrorless concept because of the AF accuracy and consistency (I use the Sony A7RII), the live image preview, and the EFCS. So the M6II is surely an option. Do you use the optional EVF when birding? And have you used a longer lens with TC? I intend to use my 400DOII with both converters. I have read a lot about the EOS-R losing AF performance with long lenses, and wonder if the M6II is better with super telelens shooting.
Visceral Image wrote:
I am reading a lot of speculation here and not a lot of facts, so I thought I would inject some facts.
The M6 Mark II has autofocusing capabilities that legitimately rival and potentially surpass what I can get on my 1DX Mark II. I began using it for recreational bird photography the moment I bought mine to snap photos when I'm walking my dog around the lake behind our house. It has difficulties in some conditions like back lighting silhouette shots when using the smallest AF point size, but if it can lock onto a subject in any tracking mode it has been rather incredible at retaining them in focus. The autofocus has been so good, in fact, that the 7D Mark II is retired for me. At the expense of weather sealing and grip, the M6 Mark II is an upgrade in every way for my needs. Granted, my bird photograpaphy is purely recreational and casual - I'm not crawling around out there waiting for the shot. In which case, I don't think that any non weather sealed camera would be a good options. I haven't pushed the camera into a motorsports setting yet, but from what I've seen from the camera myself and others have experienced, I am confident it will do rather well there too.
As for battery life, I really just don't know where the battery life rating numbers come from because they couldn't be further from the truth. I shot a wedding and used the M6 Mark II heavily to see what it could do. I was impressed with how it was doing so I just kept it slung over my shoulder and used it for details all throughout the wedding day. At some point I decided to see how far I could take the battery as the night pushed on and by the end of the reception, the battery completely died on me at 1,217 shots....1,217!? All images were taken in RAW and I used the back screen for review quite a bit. The EVF was used for roughly 70% of the photos and I was usually in high speed burst grabbing 2-3 images at a time and never a burst longer than 4 images that day. So to say I was impressed would be an understatement. Considering the fact I had multiple opportunities to use the USB battery charger - I could have probably shot the entire day with it.
Moving forward from that experience, I've taken it on three heavy outings where I was only shooting birds and once on a vacation. I was getting 400-800 images and didn't even dent the battery gauge yet, so I theoretically could have exceeded 1000 images regularly. At this point, I am confidently packing just one spare battery and my USB battery bank for a full day of shooting. ...Show more →
I've been researching the same question as Coppertop and: my M6II should be arriving tomorrow. This is somewhat of an experiment since I've been resisting the M system for quite some time now but reading the user reactions over on DPR, most users have echoed Visceral Image. This also echos the DPR and Camera Labs reviews. Imaging Resource has a review specifically of Raw Burst Mode that you should read if you are considering this an important feature. They generally find the M6II a great action camera as well.
My decision is somewhat specific (as is everyone's) but might be instructional. I already have a 5D4 and 80D which are my main travel/wildlife cameras. I made trips to East Africa and Madagascar last year and both cameras (w/ 100-400 II) performed exceedingly well. I like my 80D enough that the improvements in the 90D just don't seem justifiable. I've also been using my G1X3 as backup/suppement for nearly two years and it is a 14 oz jewell. It has the best APS-C normal range zoom that Canon offers IMHO; I can barely distinguish it from the 24-70 and 24-105 Ls on my 6D2. Its been wonderful to use when I have the big or wide or prime lens on my other body.
So my hope for the M6II is for a G1X3 body to use with my 55-250 or 70-300 IS II when I have the 24-105 on the 5D4. I don't have any specific wildlife trips in the near future (Machu Picchu next spring) so the 24-105 will be the main lens and the M will supplement for reach with a smaller telephoto. I also ordered the 11-22 which will be the only native M lens. The M with lens adapter and viewfinder weighs a couple ounces more that my SL2 with much better capability and more compact when packed for travel. Several of the M's new features, focus stacking, video, face/eye detect AF will work well with some of my lesser used IS primes 24, 35, 100L, and 35 STM macro. Hope it brings new life to the 60 macro. Use with the 100-400 is TBD everything is an experiment.
ChrisMak wrote:
Thanks for sharing this experience with the M6II. It sounds promising I have to say. I want to replace my 7DII but haven't figured out yet with what: the 90D, EOS-R, M6II, or just wait longer. I like the mirrorless concept because of the AF accuracy and consistency (I use the Sony A7RII), the live image preview, and the EFCS. So the M6II is surely an option. Do you use the optional EVF when birding? And have you used a longer lens with TC? I intend to use my 400DOII with both converters. I have read a lot about the EOS-R losing AF performance with long lenses, and wonder if the M6II is better with super telelens shooting.
I'm also wondering how the EVF performs in practice for action. Most reviews and user experience already suggest that M6II may often be the better of the two for action, but wildlife with long lenses (hand-held) using just the back LCD is not an option IMHO, especially when the subject is moving fast or for other reasons a tripod is not possible.
I cannot imagine the EVF of M6II is blackout free AND near-realtime, as Sony A9 seems to be the only camera able to do that and it requires loads of technology. More likely the EVF has a lagging display when using burst shooting, which could be a big problem for tracking and even for checking focus on moving subjects (you would have to blindly trust the AF system - as good as it may be, in nature there are many situations where AF gets confused and it won't be different for M6 II).
Canon suggest using 3 fps or 14 fps for AIServo with the viewfinder, presumably for blackout reasons. I don't remember reading any actual user complaints about blackout issues. I'll learn in the next few days, FEDEX called to say they will be delivering my camera about the time the kids show up looking for candy. I guess I should treat the driver.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
Canon suggest using 3 fps or 14 fps for AIServo with the viewfinder, presumably for blackout reasons. I don't remember reading any actual user complaints about blackout issues. I'll learn in the next few days, FEDEX called to say they will be delivering my camera about the time the kids show up looking for candy. I guess I should treat the driver.
No complaints might be related to expectations; it is unlikely that many serious action/IF shooters are using the M6II for this as it seems counterintuitive. For normal use (without burst shooting / tracking) blackout should not be a problem.
ChrisMak wrote:
Thanks for sharing this experience with the M6II. It sounds promising I have to say. I want to replace my 7DII but haven't figured out yet with what: the 90D, EOS-R, M6II, or just wait longer. I like the mirrorless concept because of the AF accuracy and consistency (I use the Sony A7RII), the live image preview, and the EFCS. So the M6II is surely an option. Do you use the optional EVF when birding? And have you used a longer lens with TC? I intend to use my 400DOII with both converters. I have read a lot about the EOS-R losing AF performance with long lenses, and wonder if the M6II is better with super telelens shooting.
Yes, I have been using the EVF exclusively because I don't find using the screen to be a good option - especially when using a longer lens and trying to keep something in the frame. I don't want to play up the reality of using this camera as something being a hardcore sports camera - its shortcomings should be pretty obvious - but it's Canon's most capable APS-C camera it has ever produced. If this sort of performance was in the chassis of a 7D Mark II, I would honestly debate selling my 1DX Mark II and I think Canon knows that. There can't be a camera that outperforms the 1DX and this might potentially do that from my experience using the 1DX for the past three years to shoot motorsports and weddings. The M6 was deliberately restricted with its buffer, build quality, and design of a detachable EVF. That's my opinion...but I think it's a phenomenal camera for sports and wildlife if you know what you're getting into with such a small camera that isn't weather sealed. That immediately takes it off the list for everyone but casual wildlife photographers like myself. But I plan to bring this with me to every race next season and see what she can do.
Visceral Image wrote:
Yes, I have been using the EVF exclusively because I don't find using the screen to be a good option - especially when using a longer lens and trying to keep something in the frame. I don't want to play up the reality of using this camera as something being a hardcore sports camera - its shortcomings should be pretty obvious - but it's Canon's most capable APS-C camera it has ever produced. If this sort of performance was in the chassis of a 7D Mark II, I would honestly debate selling my 1DX Mark II and I think Canon knows that. There can't be a camera that outperforms the 1DX and this might potentially do that from my experience using the 1DX for the past three years to shoot motorsports and weddings. The M6 was deliberately restricted with its buffer, build quality, and design of a detachable EVF. That's my opinion...but I think it's a phenomenal camera for sports and wildlife if you know what you're getting into with such a small camera that isn't weather sealed. That immediately takes it off the list for everyone but casual wildlife photographers like myself. But I plan to bring this with me to every race next season and see what she can do. ...Show more →
If I could take the 7DII sensor out, end replace it with the M6II sensor, I would be more than happy to keep shooting the 7DII for the next five years. I have not experienced the AF woes that others have described, perhaps it joins well with the 400DOII and converters, but it gives me many times more keepers than my former Pentax k3II+DA560. Its sensor however, though far from bad, lacks the depth and color subtlety of the K3II sensor, which is a Sony sensor. I feel like being driven to a new body strictly for the sensor performance, while liking everything else. Had I not shot Sony sensors for five years, I might have been content, but I do hope the new 32,5mp Canon sensor is up there with the best Sony sensors. The M6II might be a very good temporary solution until Canon brings out a proper wildlife camera with the new sensor. I don't care personally whether dslr or mirrorless, both have pro's and con's. But it feels weird now being with a brand that makes superb lenses, but simply does not have a dslr or wheathersealed crop body that does them justice, or perhaps I should give the 90D a chance after all, as it has the same live view shooting performance as the M6II, and learn to track with the screen....
technic wrote:
No complaints might be related to expectations; it is unlikely that many serious action/IF shooters are using the M6II for this as it seems counterintuitive. For normal use (without burst shooting / tracking) blackout should not be a problem.
Well, Tom_W and Visceral Image seem to like it. And many of the user reports I've read are wildlife related, or those are the ones I focused on. Enough to convince me to experiment. The other area where I've read positive reports is with macro/close focus accuracy, including using focus bracketing hand held.
The problem I see choosing between the 90D and 6DII or even a 7D3 is that the major improvements in AF have been with the live view DPAF system. The 90D has added viewfinder face detection but 45 AF sensors can hardly compete with the much higher resolution of the main sensor for this. And you have to turn off face detect and ITR to realize the fastest frame rate. From my reading, the live view frame rate doesn't seem to have these limitations; maybe disable face/eye for wildlife use?
To use sensor based AF with a big lens you need an EVF. So to realize the benefit of the 90D/M6II sensor AF system in a 7D3, it would need to be mirrorless. Don't know about blackout issues, but with dual processors, one to move/process data and one for AF, it would be an awesome machine. Perhaps the 90D/M6II release is a test to see where the public goes.
As I said above, I intend to use the M6II with the 70-300 II nano-USM to keep the overall weight light but still get fast frame rate and 500 mm effective reach. I've been doing a fair amount of hiking lately and this combo paired with my G1X3 seems ideal for that, replacing my 80D or SL2 for this scenario. And paired with the 5D4 for travel where scenery is the emphasis. All new cameras are on probation until I determine their strengths and weaknesses and find their niche.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
Well, Tom_W and Visceral Image seem to like it. And many of the user reports I've read are wildlife related, or those are the ones I focused on. Enough to convince me to experiment. The other area where I've read positive reports is with macro/close focus accuracy, including using focus bracketing hand held.
The problem I see choosing between the 90D and 6DII or even a 7D3 is that the major improvements in AF have been with the live view DPAF system. The 90D has added viewfinder face detection but 45 AF sensors can hardly compete with the much higher resolution of the main sensor for this. And you have to turn off face detect and ITR to realize the fastest frame rate. From my reading, the live view frame rate doesn't seem to have these limitations; maybe disable face/eye for wildlife use?
To use sensor based AF with a big lens you need an EVF. So to realize the benefit of the 90D/M6II sensor AF system in a 7D3, it would need to be mirrorless. Don't know about blackout issues, but with dual processors, one to move/process data and one for AF, it would be an awesome machine. Perhaps the 90D/M6II release is a test to see where the public goes.
As I said above, I intend to use the M6II with the 70-300 II nano-USM to keep the overall weight light but still get fast frame rate and 500 mm effective reach. I've been doing a fair amount of hiking lately and this combo paired with my G1X3 seems ideal for that, replacing my 80D or SL2 for this scenario. And paired with the 5D4 for travel where scenery is the emphasis. All new cameras are on probation until I determine their strengths and weaknesses and find their niche....Show more →
I'm considering the M6II as a temporary solution as well, the only current alternative is moving to Nikon (D500 + 4/300PF etc.) but with the D500 my current Liveview experience would suffer. Maybe the M6II is worth keeping as a secondary camera with some of my lenses for mainly macro stuff, especially if it performs well enough for action. I have almost half a year to decide because I don't need an action camera before april/may. Had planned to upgrade this year but there were no really attractive options (also because D500 was still very expensive over here, w'll see what happens in the next months).
Yes, I much prefer a real viewfinder for my photography and if I wasn't happy with my 80D performance or had imminent wildlife oriented trips it would have been a harder decision. The M hopefully fills a role that doesn't obsolete my current cameras. Except perhaps the SL2 which was supposed to be my Granddaughters - she decided to keep the SL1 she is used to.
I did a quick experiment yesterday evening, before the sun went down. Not extremely scientific, but I wanted to see how the M6 ii performed in high-ISO situations versus the 5D4 with the 1.4X in higher ISO situations.
Basically, I took a few stills with the M6ii on the EF 500/4 II bare lens at ISO 3200, and then the same shots with the 5D4 with the 1.4X III and the 500/4 II lens at ISO 6400 to see how they compared in terms of noise.
Anyway, my results - both setups needed noise reduction in LR (both shot RAW, tried to equalize settings as much as possible). The big thing I noted was that I needed to push the Luminance NR slider a little farther on the M6ii at 3200 ISO than I did on the 5D4 at 6400. Not a lot, but I would say that the 5D4 6400 shots were just a pinch cleaner than the M6ii at 3200.
Also noted, the 5D4 with the teleconverter at f/8 had a slightly shallower DOF, as expected, compared to the M6ii and shorter lens at f/8. Colors maybe slightly richer on the 5D4, but not a lot different. Both were set to "daylight" white balance. The M6ii wanted to expose 1/3 stop brighter, probably a spot-metering circle difference and one that I failed to deal with until post-processing. I should have used manual.
My takeaway from this is that the M6ii presents a decent lightweight carry camera with, say, the 100-400 II, compared to the 5D4 with my Siggy 150-600. Though I do wish the 100-400 were a pinch lighter (the eternal 400/5.6L would be a nice lightweight, sharp companion, but no IS and no zoom). Things get a little dicey at the higher ISO situations, and putting the 1.4X on the 100-400 with the M6ii takes away a lot of darker situation shooting options because you will need to start pushing ISO 6400. Now, I can clean up 6400 on the M6ii, but so far, I've found that micro-detail gets eaten up with the noise reduction actions. (could be that I'm just not very good at noise reduction).
Conclusion - not quite as good in my eyes, but the M6ii is very competent for a walkabout birding body in terms of image noise. Still looking at other aspects of the body. I dont' have nearly enough experience with moving subjects yet to comment on the tracking capability. It works well, but I'm still getting used to the EVF versus Optical viewfinder.
Visceral Image wrote:
I am reading a lot of speculation here and not a lot of facts, so I thought I would inject some facts.
The M6 Mark II has autofocusing capabilities that legitimately rival and potentially surpass what I can get on my 1DX Mark II. I began using it for recreational bird photography the moment I bought mine to snap photos when I'm walking my dog around the lake behind our house. It has difficulties in some conditions like back lighting silhouette shots when using the smallest AF point size, but if it can lock onto a subject in any tracking mode it has been rather incredible at retaining them in focus. The autofocus has been so good, in fact, that the 7D Mark II is retired for me. At the expense of weather sealing and grip, the M6 Mark II is an upgrade in every way for my needs. Granted, my bird photograpaphy is purely recreational and casual - I'm not crawling around out there waiting for the shot. In which case, I don't think that any non weather sealed camera would be a good options. I haven't pushed the camera into a motorsports setting yet, but from what I've seen from the camera myself and others have experienced, I am confident it will do rather well there too.
As for battery life, I really just don't know where the battery life rating numbers come from because they couldn't be further from the truth. I shot a wedding and used the M6 Mark II heavily to see what it could do. I was impressed with how it was doing so I just kept it slung over my shoulder and used it for details all throughout the wedding day. At some point I decided to see how far I could take the battery as the night pushed on and by the end of the reception, the battery completely died on me at 1,217 shots....1,217!? All images were taken in RAW and I used the back screen for review quite a bit. The EVF was used for roughly 70% of the photos and I was usually in high speed burst grabbing 2-3 images at a time and never a burst longer than 4 images that day. So to say I was impressed would be an understatement. Considering the fact I had multiple opportunities to use the USB battery charger - I could have probably shot the entire day with it.
Moving forward from that experience, I've taken it on three heavy outings where I was only shooting birds and once on a vacation. I was getting 400-800 images and didn't even dent the battery gauge yet, so I theoretically could have exceeded 1000 images regularly. At this point, I am confidently packing just one spare battery and my USB battery bank for a full day of shooting. ...Show more →
good to know the the little M6 II mirrorless has faster AF than the 1DX II
Visceral Image wrote:
Yes, I have been using the EVF exclusively because I don't find using the screen to be a good option - especially when using a longer lens and trying to keep something in the frame. I don't want to play up the reality of using this camera as something being a hardcore sports camera - its shortcomings should be pretty obvious - but it's Canon's most capable APS-C camera it has ever produced. If this sort of performance was in the chassis of a 7D Mark II, I would honestly debate selling my 1DX Mark II and I think Canon knows that. There can't be a camera that outperforms the 1DX and this might potentially do that from my experience using the 1DX for the past three years to shoot motorsports and weddings. The M6 was deliberately restricted with its buffer, build quality, and design of a detachable EVF. That's my opinion...but I think it's a phenomenal camera for sports and wildlife if you know what you're getting into with such a small camera that isn't weather sealed. That immediately takes it off the list for everyone but casual wildlife photographers like myself. But I plan to bring this with me to every race next season and see what she can do. ...Show more →
IMO Canon made a huge mistake by not releasing the M6 II as a RF APS-C product and future proofing it. I was pretty impressed by the specs and as others have noted it seems to have better tracking AF than the 90D which disappointingly rehashes the 80D AF. I had high hopes for an M5 II which would offer built in higher res EVF, bigger buffer, better sealing and a few other extras, say for an extra $250. It really would have been a good 7DII replacement even more so as a RF mount product.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
IMO Canon made a huge mistake by not releasing the M6 II as a RF APS-C product and future proofing it. I was pretty impressed by the specs and as others have noted it seems to have better tracking AF than the 90D which disappointingly rehashes the 80D AF. I had high hopes for an M5 II which would offer built in higher res EVF, bigger buffer, better sealing and a few other extras, say for an extra $250. It really would have been a good 7DII replacement even more so as a RF mount product.
It'd be pure speculation on my part, but suppose Canon produced a 7D3, and at the same time, an FR APS-C "sister" body, much like they did the 90D and M6ii.
Wouldn't that be interesting? And unexpected. And probably unlikely, but you just never know...
Pixel Perfect wrote:
IMO Canon made a huge mistake by not releasing the M6 II as a RF APS-C product and future proofing it. I was pretty impressed by the specs and as others have noted it seems to have better tracking AF than the 90D which disappointingly rehashes the 80D AF. I had high hopes for an M5 II which would offer built in higher res EVF, bigger buffer, better sealing and a few other extras, say for an extra $250. It really would have been a good 7DII replacement even more so as a RF mount product.
Hmmm, I don't think Canon has decided yet where they want to take this mirrorless thing. The R system is full frame. They've made no moves towards changing anything in their APS-C line. Yet they came up with this new 32 MP APS-C sensor that seems a real improvement over the previous 24 MP sensor. I'm actually a bit surprised by this since nobody else, even the fabled Sony has gone much above 24 MP in APS-C format.
Pixel notes the M6II seems to have better tracking AF than the 90D which disappointingly rehashes the 80D AF. But this is comparing the 90D viewfinder AF with the M6II's exclusively sensor based AF. The 90D has this AF but you need to use live view to use it. It seems to me that trying to do face detect with 45 AF points is a bit of a stretch. Using the full sensor to do image processing like this seems more logical.
I've owned the M6II for about a week now and can report that its tracking AF seems to work pretty well. The AF in general seems very good. I was disappointed in the AF of the 55-250 STM on the SL2 and 77D since it seemed to hunt acquiring initial focus and the STM drive is slow compared to USM. The 80D is a bit better but the M6II seems much more sure footed. I haven't been able to get it to focus search yet. It always goes the right direction and achieves focus as quickly as STM can. The 70-300 IS II nano-usm is blazingly fast as are both the Sigma and Canon 100-400s. The sensor based focus bracketing/stacking feature also seems to work well with all the lenses I've tried. The IQ is good, a bit higher res than the 80D but about the same for noise and DR.
I agree with Pixel that it would have been nice if the M6II used the M5 form factor. The add-on EVF sticks out like a sore thumb but is essential to use the M6II for any lenses bigger than, well, M lenses. I think what this sensor and AF system needs is a mirrorless 7D3 with the same body and lens mount as the 7D2. The M6II is not robust enough to really handle the 100-400 II + 1.4xIII. Its battery needs to be bigger. It needs a real field worthy body.
I'll add that the M6II has no focus parameter adjustment. What it is is what you get. You can turn off eye detect but thats it. I don't know if the sensor based AF is even potentially tunable but I think there is some untapped potential here.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
Hmmm, I don't think Canon has decided yet where they want to take this mirrorless thing. The R system is full frame. They've made no moves towards changing anything in their APS-C line. Yet they came up with this new 32 MP APS-C sensor that seems a real improvement over the previous 24 MP sensor. I'm actually a bit surprised by this since nobody else, even the fabled Sony has gone much above 24 MP in APS-C format.
I agree they haven't decided or at least are holding their cards close to their chest, but this would have been a nice introduction in the RF APS-C market and would have been highly competitive with the Z50/A6400 if priced around $1K or so but with built-in EVF. Yeah it seems to be a pretty good sensor and I just checked it out on photonstophotos and it's performance is right in the mix with the Sony 24MP sensors.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
Pixel notes the M6II But this is comparing the 90D viewfinder AF with the M6II's exclusively sensor based AF. The 90D has this AF but you need to use live view to use it. It seems to me that trying to do face detect with 45 AF points is a bit of a stretch. Using the full sensor to do image processing like this seems more logical.
I've owned the M6II for about a week now and can report that its tracking AF seems to work pretty well. The AF in general seems very good. I was disappointed in the AF of the 55-250 STM on the SL2 and 77D since it seemed to hunt acquiring initial focus and the STM drive is slow compared to USM. The 80D is a bit better but the M6II seems much more sure footed. I haven't been able to get it to focus search yet. It always goes the right direction and achieves focus as quickly as STM can. The 70-300 IS II nano-usm is blazingly fast as are both the Sigma and Canon 100-400s. The sensor based focus bracketing/stacking feature also seems to work well with all the lenses I've tried. The IQ is good, a bit higher res than the 80D but about the same for noise and DR.
I agree with Pixel that it would have been nice if the M6II used the M5 form factor. The add-on EVF sticks out like a sore thumb but is essential to use the M6II for any lenses bigger than, well, M lenses. I think what this sensor and AF system needs is a mirrorless 7D3 with the same body and lens mount as the 7D2. The M6II is not robust enough to really handle the 100-400 II + 1.4xIII. Its battery needs to be bigger. It needs a real field worthy body....Show more →
IMHO the problem with the 80D and 90D is the very slow response of the PDAF system (slow to get initial lock, especially) and some other strange quirks like a strong preference for the back of the subject or the background, instead of the foreground which in most situations makes more sense (but this same preference is to a smaller extent present with DPAF).
I'll add that the M6II has no focus parameter adjustment. What it is is what you get. You can turn off eye detect but thats it. I don't know if the sensor based AF is even potentially tunable but I think there is some untapped potential here.
This should be relatively easy to address in firmware if they want. But talking about tunable: not having to use MFA is a major advantage, given the MFA woes of my 80D with the 100-400II: there is no way I can get acceptable focus both for closeup and infinity using PDAF, it needs around 0 for infinity and around -20 at close up. ML has a big disadvantage there, but I'm curious about one of its main disadvantages which is focusing speed with long bright lenses from an initially strongly defocused situation (important for wildlife etc.).
If you add it all up, my impression continues to be that the M6II is a test bed for these technologies but deliberately "crippled" so as not to appeal to the real 7D3 type customers. Add a capable fixed EVF, bigger battery, some more AF parameters, some improvements for current video limitations, better software for handling burst mode images etc. and it could be a serious 7D3 alternative. Maybe Canon is waiting to see if they should introduce this in an M5II or a R7X
More AF parameters might require a stacked sensor, I doubt there is much more Canon can do in realtime with all this sensor data. Without this is would be difficult to compete with cameras like Sony A9, but maybe they don't have to when the current technology in M6II with some tweaks is good enough for most enthusiast action/wildlife shooters? In that case they could do with just one very expensive high end R action body.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I agree they haven't decided or at least are holding their cards close to their chest, but this would have been a nice introduction in the RF APS-C market and would have been highly competitive with the Z50/A6400 if priced around $1K or so but with built-in EVF. Yeah it seems to be a pretty good sensor and I just checked it out on photonstophotos and it's performance is right in the mix with the Sony 24MP sensors.
everything is an experiment.