Here are a couple of Canon EOS M6 Mark II reviews

[M. D. Vaden of Oregon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 older..!



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]

Aye, I don't think of myself as "old" - just older..!



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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.