Why I'll have a look at EOS M, and what I'll look for...

Started Jul 24, 2012 | Discussions thread
PaulRivers Veteran Member • Posts: 7,420
Re: Why I'll have a look at EOS M, and what I'll look for...

IcyVeins wrote:

NEX is smaller

Nex 5n - 110.8 x 62.2 x 38.2 mm

EOS-M - 109 x 66 x 32 mm
117 x 63 x 33mm

NEX sensor has better high ISO performance

I compared the 60d to the Nex 5n - I don't see a difference -

NEX costs less

Only the 5n with the short zoom is $700. And that's it's "$100 less after it's been out for a while" price.

The NEX f1.8 prime lens costs $300, which makes it a $1,000 NEX vs an $800 EOS-M if you want a camera that performs the best in low light.

And that doesn't count that the nex simply doesn't have a compact f2.0 or better lens - it's f2.8 is relatively large.

Sorry, wrong on all three counts.

Sorry, what you wrote is pretty full of it.

In fact the E-M5 may even be as good or better at high ISOs as the EOS M, just compare NEX-5N and E-M5 with DPR's studio comparison tool.

As I said, I could see how someone could say they appear to perform the same. But the e-m5 is still a larger camera with a higher price tag to get the f1.7 prime lens.

PaulRivers wrote:

Yeah, the EOS-M is really the:

  • Smallest

  • Best for low light

  • At the lowest cost

Mirrorless you can buy. The NEX doesn't compete as it doesn't have a compact f2.0-or-better prime lens.

The only other interesting option is the Olympus e5m (I think that's the name) - with the f1.7 lens which is about 1/2 of a stop better than f2.0, that makes up some of the sensor difference, and the in-body stabilization gives you IS as well, something the Canon does lack. However, that's also $900 + a $350 lens, so...the Canon is still the cheapest...

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow