Professional reviewers of the Canon M6 Mark II bemoan the lack of quality native lens. Get over it. Circular file those kit zoom lens like the ones handed out in Canon’s press preview events. (I have given away one M50 camera body and kit zoom lens with another giveaway to come.)Sigma has released three quality EF-M fast prime lens. I have been using both the 16 mm f/1.4 (24 mm equivalent focal length for full sensor) and 56 mm f/1.4 (84 mm). Along with Canon’s 32 mm f/1.4 (51 mm), these are excellent lenses. The advantage of the Mark II higher resolution sensor (compared to the M50) and good prime glass can be seen in 11x17 and 13x19 prints. Hopefully, Canon will release a quality EF-M zoom lens in the near future.Why spend thousands on a prosumer crop sensor camera? Two reasons. First, you avoid the greater bulk and weight of full sensor camera body and glass. Second, the Canon M6 Mark II is an excellent camera for concert photography without a photo pass. It passes for an inexpensive compact camera. Buy a good seat within reach of the 32 mm or 56 mm lens. No EVF or zoom lens to call attention. Elevate the camera slightly to clear the heads of those in front of you. Limit shooting time and dim the LCD display to be courteous to those behind you. The wide shots and medium crops will be excellent to print and share with family and friends. Leave the commercial stuff to the pros.2/4/2020 - just returned from a 10 day vacation in US Virgin Islands and British Virgin Islands. The camera and lens got a workout in all conditions, including pouring rain. The Canon 32 mm f/1.4 was the sharpest lens and produced the best photos. After many hours of Lightroom processing and review, I believe the Canon lens outperformed the Sigma 16 mm f/1.4 which excelled in indoor photos, such as the one of the St. Thomas synagogue. The Sigma 56 mm f/1.4 did a nice job as well.I chose to shoot most outdoor shots with an aperture of + or - f/5.0 and a shutter speed of 1/2000th - 1/3200th of a second. Setting my focus point a third or so into the frame, I was able to obtain pretty sharp focus foreground and background. (I am just an amateur. Please forgive my lack of mastery of technical terms.) For what is it worth, I felt the camera struggled a bit with dynamic range, especially shooting the Baths in Virgin Gorda where giant boulders blocked the sunlight and created deep shadows. I was only partially able to bring up the shadows in Lightroom. This was one of those times in the trip (there were others) that I wished I had brought along a full-frame camera, like the impressive Nikon kits lugged by 2 German visitors wadding through the Baths (don't slip).Now a downside or two to this camera. The touch shutter constantly defaults to ENABLE mode, despite constant disabling in the menu. This produces a lot of wasted shots and a focus point on the display that moves around all over the place. And, the EVF stayed in my bag nearly the entire trip. (I used flash on several occasions and had to remove the EVF each time to mount a flash or remote trigger.) It is just easier to compose the shots using the display. I turned the display brightness to maximum, and could make out the display even in the intense sun of the Baths. Seriously consider buying this camera as a body only without the EVF and mediocre kit zoom lens. I doubled down and ordered a second body.

Excellent quality underwater, tested at 20ft and 60ft attached to a crab trap. Had some VERY minor water enter the outer casing. No problems with video quality though. I Will likely buy again.

Saw the trailer for this, and wanted to see it. I was not disappointed…. They bot did awesome as actors, I love any movie either one of them are in…. Keep it going!!!

I needed to replace a Schneider neutral grad filter I've used for years, after it developed cracks (and was getting scratched up). I priced a new one: $355....ouch. I saw the ICE brand here for nearly $300. less and decided to try it (I don't like the resin Lee filters as they seem to scratch too easily, I much prefer glass). I can't see any difference in quality of my test photos. The Schneider is considerable thicker glass (it is 3mm or maybe even 4mm vs. stated 2mm thickness of the ICE filter). So it is possible the ICE will break easier if mis-handled. Either one fits well in my Lee square/rectangular filter holder (you can adjust the Lee holder for either thickness, or use both at the same time thanks to the holder design). Both filters seem to have about the same "soft edge" graduation (I rarely use "hard edge" filters.) The ICE says it is "3-stop" while the Schneider is designated "ND .9". Confusing but I have read .9 is the same as 3-stop density. They do appear to have the same density at the darkest area. One bonus with the ICE filter is that it comes in plastic clamshell case (with foam inserts). The Schneider (and Lee) filters arrive in a velcro cloth pouch. While good for preventing scratches the pouches don't protect the filter from getting bent/broken inside. I think the Schneider cracked in my backpack because of that (my bad). The ICE holder is rigid and should avoid that during storage/carrying. However the plastic hinges on the case seem like they could wear out and separate in time. I will report again if I encounter any issues with that or the filter itself. Last thing, when viewed in direct sun you can see the layering used in production of the ICE filter to make the gradation. It does not appear perfectly "smooth" or evenly graduated like the Schneider does. Possibly they use a different (cheaper?) production process. Regardless, I can see absolutely no difference in comparison photos taken with either filter and price wins out here.

I like the ease of setting up the camera. The images are clear. I have used it in my backyard to capture wildlife pictures. Great product!!