Canon has discontinued the Canon EOS M6 Mark II

#181
OneSnark said:
I was seriously considering buying into the "M" system; as a travel rig. . . but while one or two *lenses* were interesting; most were F6.3-F7.1 crud. I was seeing a few bodies released each year. . .but nothing worthwhile in terms of lenses. This shied me away from the entire product line. I now use a G5x-II for travel. Or an iPhone. Works well enough.
Click to expand...
The G5X II as a travel camera has the advantage of an f/1.8-2.8 lens. I find myself in dark, cramped spaces, such as chapels in Italy. So when I need the speed the most, I am shooting at the wide end where the lens is fastest. On bigger cameras out in daylight, I'm shooting about f/8 anyway, so f/7.1 is not crud. But with the small lens and sensor, diffraction becomes an issue very early. Auto exposure chooses wide apertures and low ISOs. I don't know how or when the built-in ND filter kicks in. Maybe that is just for video. So I agree with your travel camera choice. I don't seem on trips ever to regret the 120mm equivalent telephoto limitation. But with cramped interiors and spacious scenic vistas, I could use something wider than the 24mm equivalent. So I resort to taking shots to be stitched once I get home.
 
Upvote 0
#182
stevelee said:
But with cramped interiors and spacious scenic vistas, I could use something wider than the 24mm equivalent.
Click to expand...
For urban travel, I would not want to be limited to 24mm on the wide end. Many times, even the wide end of the M11-22 is too narrow:
8DDCD312-490D-4FA1-8781-EA5EA2CC5A5F.jpeg

That was an overnight trip where I took just the M kit. On longer trips, I generally have a FF camera and the 11-24/4L, which is useful outdoors and in:
9AC255D7-E2C3-41A1-930E-032F820854AF.jpeg
2BA0D6A3-79C2-4AC8-A74B-883377359B37.jpeg
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#183
Upvote 0
#184
Bob Howland said:
I use a G7X for travel. The M system has been a big disappointment.
Click to expand...

I upgraded a G7x-II to the G5x-II. Although the G5x is less "pocketable"; the EVF is handy and I find the autofocus better. Very nice results.

stevelee said:
The G5X II as a travel camera has the advantage of an f/1.8-2.8 lens. I find myself in dark, cramped spaces, such as chapels in Italy. So when I need the speed the most, I am shooting at the wide end where the lens is fastest. On bigger cameras out in daylight, I'm shooting about f/8 anyway, so f/7.1 is not crud. But with the small lens and sensor, diffraction becomes an issue very early. Auto exposure chooses wide apertures and low ISOs. I don't know how or when the built-in ND filter kicks in. Maybe that is just for video. So I agree with your travel camera choice. I don't seem on trips ever to regret the 120mm equivalent telephoto limitation. But with cramped interiors and spacious scenic vistas, I could use something wider than the 24mm equivalent. So I resort to taking shots to be stitched once I get home.
Click to expand...


THIS.

Yeah, I like the fast lens. . . . but I am not a fan of the distortion at the wide end. Which is why I wished that the "M" line had a *high quality* F4 zoom alternative. (wasn't being greedy by asking for F2.8 or F2 zooms). For "out in daylight, I'm shooting F8". I hear you on that - - but honestly the P&S (or even a phone) does fine under those conditions. It's for the dark churches that you want the larger sensor (APS-C or FF) and fast glass.

And let's be clear: I *might* have been sold if a F6.3 lens had great image quality; low distortion and good resolution curves. However, the slow M kit lenses did not fit that description. So - - - pass.

Side note: I heard about the good rep for the few M primes. That's all well and good (and I was tempted); but *for a travel rig*; one gotta have zooms (after all. . the intent is to NOT have a big bag of lenses with you . . . .)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#185
OneSnark said:
Yeah, I like the fast lens. . . . but I am not a fan of the distortion at the wide end. Which is why I wished that the "M" line had a *high quality* F4 zoom alternative. (wasn't being greedy by asking for F2.8 or F2 zooms). For "out in daylight, I'm shooting F8". I hear you on that - - but honestly the P&S (or even a phone) does fine under those conditions. It's for the dark churches that you want the larger sensor (APS-C or FF) and fast glass.

And let's be clear: I *might* have been sold if a F6.3 lens had great image quality; low distortion and good resolution curves. However, the slow M kit lenses did not fit that description. So - - - pass.

Side note: I heard about the good rep for the few M primes. That's all well and good (and I was tempted); but *for a travel rig*; one gotta have zooms (after all. . the intent is to NOT have a big bag of lenses with you . . . .)
Click to expand...
The 11-22mm f/4-5.6 is one of the M line strengh. To my knowledge, there is no alternative in any brand with such size/price/quality ratio.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
#186
OneSnark said:
I upgraded a G7x-II to the G5x-II. Although the G5x is less "pocketable"; the EVF is handy and I find the autofocus better. Very nice results.
Click to expand...
I looked at the G5X but bought the G7x because of pocketability
OneSnark said:
Side note: I heard about the good rep for the few M primes. That's all well and good (and I was tempted); but *for a travel rig*; one gotta have zooms (after all. . the intent is to NOT have a big bag of lenses with you . . . .)
Click to expand...
I have two Sigma primes (16 & 30), the Canon 22 f/2 and the 18-150 but found myself always taking the G7X or a DSLR and L lens. The M5 turned out to be a rather poor substitute in both directions.
 
Upvote 0
#187
stevelee said:
The G5X II as a travel camera has the advantage of an f/1.8-2.8 lens. I find myself in dark, cramped spaces, such as chapels in Italy. So when I need the speed the most, I am shooting at the wide end where the lens is fastest. On bigger cameras out in daylight, I'm shooting about f/8 anyway, so f/7.1 is not crud. But with the small lens and sensor, diffraction becomes an issue very early. Auto exposure chooses wide apertures and low ISOs. I don't know how or when the built-in ND filter kicks in. Maybe that is just for video. So I agree with your travel camera choice. I don't seem on trips ever to regret the 120mm equivalent telephoto limitation. But with cramped interiors and spacious scenic vistas, I could use something wider than the 24mm equivalent. So I resort to taking shots to be stitched once I get home.
Click to expand...
For low light shots, don't forget that f/1.8-2.8 on 1" sensor is equivalent to f/3.0-4.7 on an Canon APSC sensor. Still brighter but not far off the 15-45 f/3.5-6.3 kit lens. With the added possibility of brighter primes.
But I also get the convenience of a all-in-one package.
 
Upvote 0
#188
Bob Howland said:
I looked at the G5X but bought the G7x because of pocketability

I have two Sigma primes (16 & 30), the Canon 22 f/2 and the 18-150 but found myself always taking the G7X or a DSLR and L lens. The M5 turned out to be a rather poor substitute in both directions.
Click to expand...
Interesting viewpoint. best portability OR best quality. Makes sense.
I've always looked for versatility for my tools (mountain bike, skis, clothes, caméras...) So for me the M is the affordable-yet-delivering jack of all trades. When you want only one system, the M has a hard-to-beat value for money. Especially the few lenses.

Maybe, that's why it will be chopped-off. Camera manufacturers are ALL pushing toward higher margin portfolios after all.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#189
Bob Howland said:
Were any of those taken using a tripod?
Click to expand...
The WWII memorial in DC was on a tripod (30 s exposure and cropped to pano view, not stitched), the interior of the Saint-Gatien Cathedral in Tours, France was handheld (1/40 s exposure).

The London Eye was on a GorillaPod SLR Zoom on the ground (3.2 s exposure). The GorillaPod is a great companion to an M body, it’s small and light but very useful and versatile…just like the M series. Here’s another shot of the Eye with the M11-22 (2.5 s), taken from one of the Golden Jubilee Bridges over the Thames with the GorillaPod wrapped around a railing:
CEBD0D2C-3624-4C45-B01A-4B13921A7F0F.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#190
LogicExtremist said:
So which countries has the Canon EOS M6 Mark II is being discontinued in? Searching though Canon US, CAN, UK, AU, and their retailers we find:
US - available
CAN - available
UK - available
AU - discontinued

It looks like Canon Australia has definitely discontinued the M6 Mark II. If anyone can find the second country, that would be great! :)
Click to expand...
Canon France : available
Canon Germany : available
Canon Italy : available
Canon Spain : available
Canon Swiss : available
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#191
hachu21 said:
The 11-22mm f/4-5.6 is one of the M line strengh. To my knowledge, there is no alternative in any brand with such size/price/quality ratio.
Click to expand...
Agreed. For me, no travel solution would work without something wider than 24mm (FF equivalent framing). I have used the PowerShot S95/S100 as walkaround pocket cameras for casual family outings, but the iPhone camera is now good enough to server that purpose.

In fact, if I really want to travel light on a trip I take just the M6, M11-22 and the GorillaPod. The camera+lens fits in the little LowePro DashPoint 30, and the kit is quite small (pictured on an 8.5x11” piece of paper):
F48B80FA-F274-4BB5-97F6-4862BBE04C52.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#192
neuroanatomist said:
Agreed. For me, no travel solution would work without something wider than 24mm (FF equivalent framing). I have used the PowerShot S95/S100 as walkaround pocket cameras for casual family outings, but the iPhone camera is now good enough to server that purpose.

In fact, if I really want to travel light on a trip I take just the M6, M11-22 and the GorillaPod. The camera+lens fits in the little LowePro DashPoint 30, and the kit is quite small (pictured on an 8.5x11” piece of paper):
View attachment 203435
Click to expand...
For years I travelled with the M1+22mm in a dashpoint20, such a small package!
 
Upvote 0
#195
hachu21 said:
For low light shots, don't forget that f/1.8-2.8 on 1" sensor is equivalent to f/3.0-4.7 on an Canon APSC sensor. Still brighter but not far off the 15-45 f/3.5-6.3 kit lens. With the added possibility of brighter primes.
But I also get the convenience of a all-in-one package.
Click to expand...
Not that whole equivalence argument again. I refuse to play this time, other than to say that it is and it isn’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#196
scyrene said:
I mean... you were wrong. That's about the most begrudging way to admit it, but at least you did. No need to lash out. Being factually incorrect isn't "disagreeing". Neuro can be strident and brusque but he's tirelessly countered nonsense* on this site longer than I've been here.

*not calling your statements nonsense, I haven't paid close enough attention to what you've been saying tbh
Click to expand...
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not always right, and I don't have any issue with being pointed to correct information, and would have been totally happy with continuing a discussion about the differences that were pointed out, however, calling someone else an idiot? What really is the purpose of that? It's not to further the discussion, and since it went there, it was clear that there was no more discussion to be had.
 
Upvote 0
#197
OneSnark said:
I upgraded a G7x-II to the G5x-II. Although the G5x is less "pocketable"; the EVF is handy and I find the autofocus better. Very nice results.

Yeah, I like the fast lens. . . . but I am not a fan of the distortion at the wide end.
Click to expand...
The 7 would fit in my shirt pocket if nothing else was in there. (Usually I carry my phone and some reading glasses there.) The 5 does fine for me in a jacket or pants pocket.

The lens correction in Adobe Camera Raw pretty well takes care of the distortion for me. In rare instances I will tweak the correction a bit.
 
Upvote 0
#198
neuroanatomist said:
Agreed. For me, no travel solution would work without something wider than 24mm (FF equivalent framing). I have used the PowerShot S95/S100 as walkaround pocket cameras for casual family outings, but the iPhone camera is now good enough to server that purpose.
Click to expand...
I used the S90 and then the S120 before I got the G cameras. Years ago I was quite serious about photography, and found that when I traveled, taking pictures got in the way of my seeing and doing the things that I traveled there for. So I went for some years taking no camera along at all. That was before I had a cell phone. Then I got a rather basic film camera for trips and found that I could trust myself not to let it get in the way of things. So for me, leaving my best gear at home is a feature. Even so, when I got the G5X II, I soon went to Italy for a little over two weeks and from there then took a 14-night cruise to western Mediterranean ports, including more towns in Italy, and I took over 3,000 pictures. That’s less than 100 pictures a day, and so didn’t really interfere with my sightseeing.

My friend who traveled with me on that trip left his good Nikon gear at home and just used his iPhone. Some of his panoramas with the phone on that trip and previous ones with his son were so good that he had me print a few up on 13” wide roll paper and had them framed. I still prefer to have the flexibility of a dedicated camera and the options offered in ACR. He has a more upscale iPhone than mine. I prefer to put the money into a camera rather than getting a top iPhone (much bigger than I want to carry) to upgrade the camera. As the ship left Venice at dark I took pictures from our balcony that I doubt would have fared as well with a phone camera.

But from your comments, I think were I to carry my DSLR and a host of lenses, I might want to get the 17mm TS-E. The shift makes for more stitchable shots than just rotating the camera. Obviously the tilt would be nice for shooting buildings, too.
 
Upvote 0
#199
stevelee said:
But from your comments, I think were I to carry my DSLR and a host of lenses, I might want to get the 17mm TS-E. The shift makes for more stitchable shots than just rotating the camera. Obviously the tilt would be nice for shooting buildings, too.
Click to expand...
TS-E lenses are great for architecture, although mostly that's shift. If you're close to a tall building, pointing a regular lens up causes keystoning (the building looks trapezoidal), but keeping the camera level and using shift keeps the vertical lines vertical. Here's an example of the exterior of the Cathédrale Saint-Gatien de Tours, the image on the left is not mine but was clearly taken with a standard lens pointed up, the one on the right is mine with the TS-E 17 and shift. Software correction for keystoning has gotten pretty good, but since I have TS-E lenses I'll stick with the optical correction.

Screen Shot 2022-05-07 at 10.09.07 PM.png Screen Shot 2022-05-07 at 10.09.28 PM.png

You can use shift for stitching as well, getting two shots that are perfectly aligned out of the camera is nice. Stitching with the TS-E 17 gives you an 11mm FoV. However, be aware that if you need the shift to correct the verticals, you can't also use shift for stitching since the shot shifted the other way will make the verticals even worse for that part of the image.

I rarely find tilt useful for architecture, mainly since building facades are flat. Tilt allows you to change the angle of the focal plane so a flat surface that is not parallel to the sensor can be all in focus. Classic use is for landscapes where with tilt you can get the foreground and distant areas in focus without stopping down too much.

I do have one example of a facade where I used shift and tilt – shift to effectively move the camera away from the building (I was on the sidewalk right in front) and tilt so everything from the top of the gate to the tower above was in focus. This is the Basel Rathaus, city hall in Basel, Switzerland:
16710119521_39fc27b820_c.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
#200
adrian_bacon said:
I have both the M5 and an RP. Sitting them side by side, the m5 is actually taller than the RP. The RP is a little wider, and deeper, but not by much, and even more interestingly, the RP with the RF 50 STM lens weighs a whopping 5 ounces more than the M5 with the 21 STM lens. The RP is already very close to flagship M size and could pretty easily get a slight shave here and there to get it even more svelte.
View attachment 203409
View attachment 203410
View attachment 203411
Click to expand...
Thanks for showing the actual comparison.
I can only tell based on what I can remember.
So the Rp is the answer for M5ii.
If Canon rollout a series of pancake lenses would be awesome!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Canon EOS-M has been quietly discontinued
Replies
51
Views
7K
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
Canon Rumors
The next allocation of Canon EOS R5 Mark II is hitting retailers
Replies
0
Views
315
Canon Rumors
Canon Rumors
Canon Rumors
Canon EOS R1 in-store demos & possible shipping delay?
Replies
36
Views
2K
SvO2
S
Canon Rumors
The next allocation of Canon EOS R5 Mark II is hitting retailers
Replies
57
Views
4K
Del Paso
D
Canon Rumors
Canon has delayed the next EOS R5 Mark II shipments by potentially 6 months.
Replies
294
Views
24K
P-visie
P-visie
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu