Need recommendations for beginner camera and lens for bird photography

[keenanbare]

I'm totally new to photography and want to get a camera that I can use mostly for bird photography and for taking pictures during duck hunting of me, my dad, the birds we harvest, pictures of that sort. I may also dabble in some short video and casual pictures with friends, but would mostly be using the camera for bird photography and taking pictures during hunting.

I just recently purchased the Canon M50 Mark II, but am thinking about returning it. I have recently read some forums that it may not work well with telephoto lenses due to it's small/fragile size and build. Also, it seems that Canon is going away from the EF-M mount and towards the RF mount. I've read some forums that have recommended the R10 and R7, and that's currently what I have my eye on. I want something that I can grow into and with.

My price range is flexible, but would say that the upper limit is $2,000 (camera and lens included). Would be willing to go a bit higher if it's worth it.

[rs-eos]

There are numerous advantages to the R50 over the M50 to include:

• DIGIC X vs DIGIC 8 processor.
• Faster shutter (1/8000s vs 1/4000s)
• Faster sync speed (1/250s vs 1/200s)
• Dual band WiFi

RF lenses have control rings which can be very useful.

[krahe]

Those are nice features, to be sure, and I would expect such improvements over the time that has elapsed since the M50 was last updated, but not having them is probably not a show-stopper for the vast majority of people at the low end of the ILC market.

[deebatman316]

EOS M/ EF-M is now limited in features now. It can't keep up with EOS R series now since the bodies are outdated. Even for low light photography those cameras struggle big time.

[krahe]

Low-light performance is something to consider when you're buying a body or mostly when you're buying lenses. But once you have either their low-light performance isn't going to get any worse. Sure, the low-light performance of R bodies can eclipse that of the M50 and will probably improve even more over the coming years. But on the low end it looks like Canon is using those capabilities to maintain low-light performance with darker lenses rather than actually improve on the low-light performance of the M50 (which can be pretty good with fast primes), so for someone who buys an R50 and RF-S lenses, I don't know if they can really expect better low-light performance than they would get with an M50 and EF-M lenses. (The jury might still be out on that until we can get some head to head comparisons.)

[deebatman316]

My friend's dad has an R7 with the 18-45mm kit lens. Along with legacy Full Frame EF lenses 70-200/ 2.8L II, 100-400mm, 300mm F/2.8L (original non-IS version). Then the EF-S 17-55/ 2.8 lens. The R7 was able to lock focus in a dark wedding venue with the kit lens. Compared to the M50 in similar conditions. When it did struggle to acquire focus. The speedlite utilized disco flash (Intermittent Flash Firing) to lock focus. Something the M series can't do. It will keep flashing its own AF Assist Beam.

[amfoto1]

---

@krahe wrote:

Low-light performance is something to consider when you're buying a body or mostly when you're buying lenses....

---

That's certainly true and gives additional reasons to consider the 2+ year newer R10 or R50, instead of the M50 Mark II.

Note: This critique and comparison is written as a Canon M5 owner and user. I enjoy the M-series cameras... but the R-series are a step up in a number of ways.

The two R-series cameras have an ISO range a half stop higher than the M50II. With newer sensors, processors and algorithms you can expect the latest R-series like the M10 and M50 to have a bit higher usable ISO, before image noise is a problem. There also have been continued improvements in how well  post-processing software reduces image noise. Of course, this helps both cameras. (Personally I have been looking into and will probably be trying out DXO PureRaw, which has a lot of positive reviews for it's noise reduction capabilities. Topaz Denoise also gets good marks. I've been using Imagenomic's Noiseware for several years, but am always on the lookout for the next great thing.)

The two R-series cameras can meter and autofocus in light levels two stops lower than the M50II. The latter is able to meter to 0EV and autofocus to -2EV, which is pretty good (DSLRs in this price range can rarely do any better than focus to -1EV). But these R-series are both rated to be able to meter to -2EV and autofocus in -4EV light levels. (FWIW, the R7 also can meter to -2EV, but can autofocus as low as -5EV.)

Incidentally, the R50 is actually a tiny bit smaller and a few grams lighter than the M50II.

The R50 has a much more sophisticated AF system than the M50II. While both have face and eye detection, the R50's is capable of a wider variety of subjects. The R50's also has 4X as many AF points, though both have AF points covering most of the image area.

The M50II has 1/4000 to 30 seconds shutter speeds in both mechanical shutter and electronic shutter (silent) modes. The R50 doesn't have a mechanical shutter. It's electronic shutter gives 1/8000 to 30 sec shutter speeds and it's 1st curtain electronic shutter gives 1/4000 to 30 sec.

Something I've found very useful is Canon's Anti-Flicker mode. This is used to get better exposures under certain types of lighting: fluorescent, sodium vapor, etc. Those lights cycle rapidly on and off. They are notorious for causing exposure problems for photographers. Anti-Flicker detects the light cycle and times the shutter release to the peak output, essentially solving the problem. I've used it a lot for sports photography and can tell you it works quite well. In venues where I could expect half or more of my shots to be underexposed due to the lighting I now see almost no problems at all! The R10 and R50 have Anti-Flicker... the M50II does not. More info about Anti-Flicker can be found at this link. (Note: Anti-Flicker pertains to still photography.)

The biggest concern with M-series cameras is the lack of lenses. In the ten years the system has existed, only eight lenses were developed for it by Canon. There are also only a few third party autofocus lenses (three or four each from Sigma and Viltrox). The longest autofocus  telephoto in the EF-M mount is the Canon 55-200mm zoom. For a  lot of birding that will come up very short. The only way to get longer autofocus telephotos for use on an M-series is via an EF to EF-M adapter, which may effect autofocus performance.

Most of the other six Canon EF-M lenses in production are shorter than 100mm. Some of them are optically excellent. But as nice and compact as they are, all the Canon EF-M lenses use STM or "stepper motor" to drive autofocus. I believe the few 3rd party lenses for the system do, too. This type of focus drive is fine for many things.... but may be a bit slow for fast subjects like birds and other wildlife (as well as sports). For the R-series cameras Canon has already produced 32 RF mount lenses and has promised around 20 more within the next couple years. Further, many of these use faster USM "ultrasonic" focus drive, ideal for fast moving subjects when combined with a camera that has a high performance AF system.

Of course, it's also possible to use an EF to RF adapter, to fit DSLR lenses to the R-series cameras. Most users who are doing this report the lenses work at least as well adapted, as they did on DSLRs in the past... and often work better on the newer mirrorless cameras.

Finally, much as I enjoy using my M5 and a few lenses (mostly for street photography, portraits and some light travel work... NOT for sports or wildlife), it is just a matter of time until the M-series are discontinued in favor of the R-series cameras. Eventually I'm sure I'll be making that switch myself.

***********

Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7DII (x2), 7D(x2), EOS M5, some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR

[krahe]

---

@amfoto1 wrote:

The biggest concern with M-series cameras is the lack of lenses. In the ten years the system has existed, only eight lenses were developed for it by Canon.

---

I've challenged this assertion before, and no one has really answered it. While the quantity of lenses from Canon for EF-M may seem small in comparison to the number of other lenses available for, say, the EF mount, I ask whether there are any significant omissions within the price range that Canon appears to have found makes sense for the platform. I don't think so. I agree that that doesn't include long lenses that some people might want. (In fact, who WOULDN'T want to have more zoom capability?) But the fact is that a 300mm lens that can produce the IQ typical of other EF-M lenses would cost significantly more than any other EF-M lens. And even that wouldn't be long enough for many people for whom shooting something as small as a bird is a big part of their hobby. (By comparison, I think the longest EF-S lens Canon ever made was 250mm, so based on that precedent I don't know how anyone could expect something longer in EF-M.)

As for your other points, they are well taken, but I'm not contending that the R system isn't more advanced than the M system, or that the M50 Mark II is the be all, end all of mirrorless cameras, or even that I expect it and EF-M lenses to be produced forever. My point is that for someone upgrading from a cell phone camera a year ago when I bought my M50 and appreciates compact gear, there was really no better choice than the M50, despite the fact that many people in forums like this one would have warned against it. (I will leave aside criticism of the awful recommendations some of them came up with as an alternative to recommending the M50.) And a further point is that for many people who find themselves in the same position today that I was in a year ago, the M50 is still the best choice. I know it would be for me. That might change for someone who finds themselves at that point in a year or two, but at this point, what I and many others appreciate about the M50 and EF-M lenses isn't there yet for the R50.

[deebatman316]

"I bought my M50 and appreciates compact gear, there was really no better choice than the M50." Mount adapters defeat the purpose of a compact ILC. So why buy a small camera to just mount bulky adapted DSLR lenses. It makes no sense just buy a DSLR camera. In fact not all EF lenses are fully compatible with DPAF on the EOS M series. So if you want to get all the features you paid for you need the lenses with the hardware. But older EF lenses lack this hardware so you'll be quite limited feature wise.

[krahe]

I have an EF adapter, but it only travels with me when I expect to have a specific need for one of my EF lenses, such as the 50mm f/1.8, which I will take to places like museums. Most of the time it's just my 3 EF-M lenses that I take along.

[Far-Out-Dude]

I have seen several articles in the past month saying they still have plans for the M series.