Why buying a M6II today?

I see lots of folks creating threads in the DPreview forum from time to time to ask if they should purchase a M6II. As new and old users start moving here I thought we could share our thoughts on whether one should still purchase the camera now that the mount is likely phasing out.

In my case it was about future proofing my set of M lenses (which I already used with a M50) and have all that capability in terms of controls, speed and IQ in such a small body, easy to carry anywhere and shoot discretely. Also, I suspect in the RFS mount it is going to take buying a bigger camera like the R10 to have a similar experience. What are your thoughts?

I’m not sure I quite understand. Are you thinking the M lens mount is being phased out? I wouldn’t agree.

Canon is all in their RF mount. The EF (EF,EF-s, EF-m) mounts are basic getting fased out and Canon will only release new RF/RF-s mount lenses.

I am, and the recently launched R50 being a copy/paste of the M50, with better AF and video features, was the last nail in the coffin to me, unfortunately.

As long as the available lenses fit your needs, I don't see why not. It's not like a camera becomes irrelevant after a few years like a smartphone.

Checking MPB they surprisingly do seem to be holding value (all the recent EF-M cameras).

Well, if nothing breaks down or nothing wrong is going on, the current APS-C image quality of M cameras is going to hold over more than a decade.
So if you can prepare yourself well, and do not need a new camera model every year and every other year, an M setup will have your back.

The size, lens choice and price of the system still makes it a tempting choice for many.

On the other side, the R system is not complete enough, and is usually 50%-100% more expensive, compared to the M system, while it certainly does not deliver such performance and qualities for many users. Look at the basic bread and butter R lens line. Shortened zoom ranges and dimmer optics going to f/6.3, 7-8 even. That cannot be said any other way than "pathetic". If enthusiasts can afford (reserve for longer zooms), they have no reason to go past f/5.6, they go for f/2.8 and they dream of f/1.4 or even faster for Canon. F/8, that is three stops slower than wanted, and that's too bad. No, thanks.

I have jumped back into M system out of spite against current Canon product line for mentioned reasons, and purchased M6 II too.

As far as I know, there is no R challenger to M6 II with 22mm and 11-22mm lenses. But that is like 80% of my photos.

And so we hold on this M magic as long as possible.

Same for me, I'm still all in on the M mount, I normally shoot with 2 M6ii's (one with a wide, one a telephoto) and they're so small that two bodies and 4-5 lenses can fit in a medium size camera bag. I backed those up with a third body (all bought refurb or open box).

Using DxO Photolab 6 software, you can basically get results that are very similar to what you used to be able to get using conventional software, as DxO gives you 2-3 extra EV of low-light shooting capability with the ability to get clean, de-noised results, if you shoot RAW (not CRAW). Of course you will also see those improvements with full-frame images, so all things being equal, full-frame will continue to give you better low-light performance. The question is, how good is good enough? With f1.4 lenses on the M6ii I can shoot trains at night under extremely low lighting (just a few street lights) and get very good results by pushing to ISO 10,000 - 20,000. And I have my eye on the latest generation of manual focus 25mm f0.95 lenses, especially the very sharp Laowa, that would give you FF results on crop sensor with the compromise being manual focus.

The main reason I'm staying with M is the much higher cost of the R system in general, plus the lack of native R lenses --- even though Canon only released 8 EF-M lenses (I have them all) Sigma has filled the prime gaps with killer 16mm and 56mm f1.4 Contemporary lenses. The Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS STM is small and relatively lightweight for its range and works very well on M bodies with an adapter, it's one of my most-used lenses (it would also work on R of course) which I've modified to work with EF-mount teleconverters. Then there are some extra special manual focus lenses like the Laowa 9mm f2.8 zero-distortion lens and the Rokinon 12mm f2 that are simply outstanding and great in low light for ultrawide, that are also not available on R.

Larry, agree with all your comments…and speaking of lenses, the next one in my wish list is the EF-S 55-250…this weekend I took the M6II out to shoot my son’s soccer game and, as I did not want to carry the somewhat heavy and large 70-300 USM II, I ended up using the 18-150, which was clearly not long enough.
I feel the efm 55-200 would be great size wise (and not need an adapter) but not add enough additional reach versus the 18-150. On the other hand the EF-S lens would hit a sweet spot in terms of reach x size/weight and be useful should I ever decide to buy a RFS camera such as the R10 or R7.

the EF-S 55-250 IS STM would be a great choice for the reasons you mention. I did a nice write-up on how much I like that lens over the dpreview, if you haven't seen it:
www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65366142

I was thinking of getting a M6 II too. If you have used one, do you know how good is the eye AF, considering it has eye or face AF. Want to get M6 II and Sigma 56 for a small portrait setup.

11-22, 22 and 32 are 3 reasons.

These 3 lenses + 2 M6II bodies = great kit. For additional travel versatility throw in the 18-150 ... this is my travel kit in a small bag.
Need more native mount lenses? Sigma 16, 56, Canon EF-M 55-200
Want to adapt your EF lenses? I really like using the 16-35 f/4L, 70-200 f/4L (+1.4EX III), 35 f/2IS, 40 f/2.8, 85 f/1.8 - I've found all of these quite useful.

I plan on using my M system for the next 5+ years as I wait for the R system to mature a little bit more. Currently on my short list is the R6II or R8 plus the 24-105 f/4L and then gradually add R glass.

I haven’t used the M6II for portraits yet but I hear it should do the job quite nicely. I shot portraits with the M50 of static subjects at short distances and had no issues in picking the eyes and keeping them sharp. I hear the M6II is a step above the original M50 in terms of AF but the best M body for that is really the M50ii, the last one released. But that better AF would come at the expense of losing controls (3 dials), customizations (e.g. minimum shutter speed), resolution, speed, etc.

You can read DPReviews auto focus impressions here

www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m6-ii-review/6

Thanks for sharing, Larry, amazing what this lens can give you for the money. Love the sunset photo, I am addicted to a nice orange sky like that 😀

I had the M50 but replaced it with a 2nd M6II. The M50ii was (still is) tempting, tho - but the next purchase will be full frame, R6II or R8, probably.

I shot my nephew's soccer game using the M6II + 18-150 because I left the EF adapter at home, intending to shoot the game with the 70-200 f/4L + 1.4X III. Got some decent keepers but clearly the longer lens would have made big difference. If I didn't already own the 70-200 I would be looking for a good copy of the 55-250. I'm still kicking myself for not picking up a refurb for $99 several months ago.

Great that 55-250mm is mentioned. It works very nice on M bodies, and the Kenko HD DGX 1.4x teleconverter is fully compatible with that setup right out of the box. That is killer zoom setup for peanuts.

I too, am eyeballing these f/0.95 primes. What a system.

The M50 Mkii gets my vote as well - I use it for wedding photography and fast-action sports. The built-in EVF (that allows me to use a dedicated flashgun at the same time) far outweighs the 1 less dial in comparison to the M6ii. I'm sure the M6ii is a great performer but my m50ii plus the Sigma f/1.4s (56 and 30) plus the Canon 11-22 and 55-200 make a great setup indeed and ticks all my boxes