>"which camera is better (for video)?"
No comparison. Stick with the AC90.
1) Use the proper tool for the job. It's always easier to shoot video on a dedicated video camera. The only reasons to use a hybrid stills/video camera are: a) if you also shoot stills (and don't have the budget for a separate stills camera and photographer; and keep in mind that stills and video typically require different settings to get the best results), and b) if you need a cinematic look (shallow DoF, 24p, etc.) on a relatively limited budget (i.e. $10k or so) *and* are shooting a scripted narrative feature (where you have the time, budget and resources, etc. to setup, block, light and shoot multiple takes).
2) to even get close to the same coverage as the AC90's 12X zoom on the M50 would require a Canon CN-E30-300mm T2.95-3.7 L SP which sells for around $45,000 (and that's not including the $200 for an EF to M adapter )
3) once you rig the M50 with a cage, rails, follow focus, external mic, external monitor, etc. there won't be a size or weight advantage. i.e. it won't be "easier to travel with".
4) unless you're a youtuber yourself, there's no reason to think what they use will also work well for you.
5) unless there's a specific reason/shortcoming of the AC90 *for your use*, there's no reason to switch.
I make videos about gardening.
I use a Panasonic AG-AC90 camcorder.
But I was thinking about selling it and then buying a Canon M50 camera because I thought the Canon might be easier to use, easier to travel with, and shoot better video.
But I'm curious as to which camera actually is better for me.
I've been trying to compare the specs online, for example:
Optical Sensor Type... Panasonic: BSI 3MOS... Canon: CMOS
Optical Sensor Size... Panasonic: 1/4.7"... Canon: APS-C (14.9 x 22.3 mm)
...but there are so many things to compare that I get lost.
So my question is, which camera is better (for video)? Thanks!