Is M2 enough?

I recently sold my 60d as it was mostly laying at home. And a camera that doesn't take any pictures is always the worst kind. I was more or less just using my eos m but the af often hinders me from taking good pictures of children and such that you can't get to stand still.

For a week ago or so I was sure that I wanted to replace the eos m with a a6000 but the lenses just seem so boring. The pancakes just doesn't seem to be as sharp as the wonderful ef-m 22mm. The 55-200 seems to be better and lighter then Sonys 55-210. And 11-22 is just incredible.

Sure. There is no ef-m portrait but an adapter and the new 50mm stm ain't much bigger then Sonys 50mm. And I do like macro quite a bit and the Ef lenses work better with eos m then any lens with adapters do on a6000 (as far as I can tell).

So as you can guess I would like to stay with m system because of the lenses but is the af on m2 enough to take pictures of anything moving? I'm not talking about sports or so. Just a slightly moving person/child. Of Course there is the m3 but I really like the small size of the m2 and the price of course. I more or less loved everything with the m except the af. Even the lcd is bright enough for outside use (at least I had been for me).

Greggen said:

I recently sold my 60d as it was mostly laying at home. And a camera that doesn't take any pictures is always the worst kind. I was more or less just using my eos m but the af often hinders me from taking good pictures of children and such that you can't get to stand still.

For a week ago or so I was sure that I wanted to replace the eos m with a a6000 but the lenses just seem so boring. The pancakes just doesn't seem to be as sharp as the wonderful ef-m 22mm. The 55-200 seems to be better and lighter then Sonys 55-210. And 11-22 is just incredible.

Sure. There is no ef-m portrait but an adapter and the new 50mm stm ain't much bigger then Sonys 50mm. And I do like macro quite a bit and the Ef lenses work better with eos m then any lens with adapters do on a6000 (as far as I can tell).

So as you can guess I would like to stay with m system because of the lenses but is the af on m2 enough to take pictures of anything moving? I'm not talking about sports or so. Just a slightly moving person/child. Of Course there is the m3 but I really like the small size of the m2 and the price of course. I more or less loved everything with the m except the af. Even the lcd is bright enough for outside use (at least I had been for me).

Click to expand...

What I can say after using the M2 (and M3) is that the M2 is genuinely, significantly faster than M1 in all areas. It even feels faster than M3 in operation (but not in daylight AF). You really feel this. The AF is consistently more than twice as fast, also the AF frame is much larger, in low light and good light. Whether that's enough for moving subjects I think it kind of depends on your style. With continuous AF and AF servo enabled I think you have a good chance for keeping much of the pictures taken. If you get the M2 over the M1 you won't regret it, I think. I think you can upgrade (get M2 and sell the M1) for a net spend of about $100.

Sounds good. Do you use it as your only camera? Could you if you where "forced" to?

Think I'll take the chance. As you said, I won't have to spend much and if it sucks (for me) I can just jump on the Sony bandwagon later. But to be honest, samsungs nx almost seems more intriguing now. There seems to be some really nice nx lenses. Small, fast and sharp.

Greggen said:

I recently sold my 60d as it was mostly laying at home. And a camera that doesn't take any pictures is always the worst kind. I was more or less just using my eos m but the af often hinders me from taking good pictures of children and such that you can't get to stand still.

For a week ago or so I was sure that I wanted to replace the eos m with a a6000 but the lenses just seem so boring. The pancakes just doesn't seem to be as sharp as the wonderful ef-m 22mm. The 55-200 seems to be better and lighter then Sonys 55-210. And 11-22 is just incredible.

Sure. There is no ef-m portrait but an adapter and the new 50mm stm ain't much bigger then Sonys 50mm. And I do like macro quite a bit and the Ef lenses work better with eos m then any lens with adapters do on a6000 (as far as I can tell).

So as you can guess I would like to stay with m system because of the lenses but is the af on m2 enough to take pictures of anything moving? I'm not talking about sports or so. Just a slightly moving person/child. Of Course there is the m3 but I really like the small size of the m2 and the price of course. I more or less loved everything with the m except the af. Even the lcd is bright enough for outside use (at least I had been for me).

Click to expand...

I have the M and the M2 as my only cameras. To put it into perspective, in the fall I tried to take some pics of my son playing soccer (he is 11) and it was almost impossible with the M. The AF would not lock on fast enough and the shutter lag was too much.

I got the M2 about a month ago and tried taking pics of my son playing soccer and this time the M2 was much better. AF actually locked on and I was actually able to get some pictures. I still experience a decent amount of shutter lag but I can live with it for now.

In both cases I was using the Canon 55-250mm STM lens.

Anyways, I have contemplated the A6000 as well. Best Buy had open box packages with the 16-50mm lens for $450 and that really intrigued me but having been a previous Sony owner (Nex 6) I did not enjoy the lenses. I love the Dynamic Range of the Sony sensor (I shoot alot of landscapes) and with the M I have to shoot alot of HDR but I live with it.

I have had the M and currently have an M2 and Sony a6000. The M2 AF is definitely better than the M's, and definitely worse than the a6000. I prefer the Canon build quality, lenses, and UI, but the Sony is, frankly, a better camera. For casual use, the M2 is great.

Greggen said:

Sounds good. Do you use it as your only camera? Could you if you where "forced" to?

Think I'll take the chance. As you said, I won't have to spend much and if it sucks (for me) I can just jump on the Sony bandwagon later. But to be honest, samsungs nx almost seems more intriguing now. There seems to be some really nice nx lenses. Small, fast and sharp.

Click to expand...

Definitely agree about Samsung NX. They are one long telephoto away from getting me to dump my M and DSLR. Sony has some nice bodies, but the lens selection isn't close to covering my needs.

botw said:

I have had the M and currently have an M2 and Sony a6000. The M2 AF is definitely better than the M's, and definitely worse than the a6000. I prefer the Canon build quality, lenses, and UI, but the Sony is, frankly, a better camera. For casual use, the M2 is great.

Click to expand...

Agree with everything you said. One thing I'm kind of counting with is that the m3 will get an firmware update to fix some issues, improve the af a bit and drop in price. That, together with the sweet lenses seem like something that would suit me perfectly. So going for m2 wouldn't be optimal right now, but MAYBE an updated m3 (or m4) is more likely the Sony releasing as good lenses as the Ef-ms.

Greggen said:

Sounds good. Do you use it as your only camera? Could you if you where "forced" to?

Think I'll take the chance. As you said, I won't have to spend much and if it sucks (for me) I can just jump on the Sony bandwagon later. But to be honest, samsungs nx almost seems more intriguing now. There seems to be some really nice nx lenses. Small, fast and sharp.

Click to expand...

I always have only one camera. I don't see a reason to have multiple cameras. But accidentally at this moment I also have the EOS M which I will sell soon. But in my case, I rarely shoot moving objects, if they are humans I tell them to stop for a moment so I can take a picture. Also works on pets )

Greggen said:

Greggen said:

I have had the M and currently have an M2 and Sony a6000. The M2 AF is definitely better than the M's, and definitely worse than the a6000. I prefer the Canon build quality, lenses, and UI, but the Sony is, frankly, a better camera. For casual use, the M2 is great.

Click to expand...

Agree with everything you said. One thing I'm kind of counting with is that the m3 will get an firmware update to fix some issues, improve the af a bit and drop in price. That, together with the sweet lenses seem like something that would suit me perfectly. So going for m2 wouldn't be optimal right now, but MAYBE an updated m3 (or m4) is more likely the Sony releasing as good lenses as the Ef-ms.

Click to expand...

If you end up going with A6000, the Sigma primes are the ones to get. The 19mm and 30mm are not as bright or sharp as the EF-M 22mm, but they're definitely not disappointing. 60mm is extremely sharp from what I've seen.

M2 with 22mm is a wonderful combo - small, light, cheap, and super sharp right from wide open. Plus that Canon color rendering.

Greggen said:

Greggen wrote: I recently sold my 60d as it was mostly laying at home. And a camera that doesn't take any pictures is always the worst kind. I was more or less just using my eos m

Click to expand...

We share the same experience. I bought EOS-M mainly as a joke as I couldn't walk away from the $299 fire sale. I thought I'll play with it and eventually sell it or give it away to my sister.

The opposite happened! My EOS-M became my daily camera with my so called "superior" Canon and a Nikon DSLR sitting @home collecting dust. I feel a sense of GUILTY looking at my DSLR. I finally sold them, as well as my camera bags, my tripod collections, and 5-10 UV filters I acquired over the years. It still amaze that the most ridiculed camera in DPR turn out to my FAVORITE camera.

Greggen said:

I wanted to replace the eos m with a a6000 but the lenses just seem so boring. The pancakes just doesn't seem to be as sharp as the wonderful ef-m 22mm. The 55-200 seems to be better and lighter then Sonys 55-210. And 11-22 is just incredible.

Click to expand...

Same here, Sony A6000 is the strongest second choice for everyone here. It does have superior daylight AF (daylight), unfortunately, the Low Light is hit-&-miss, as A6000 revert to 100% CDAF, and can struggle badly. Sony A6000 lack the useful touchscreen, so you can't direct it to focus on the subject using touch-focus.

That in essence is that makes EOS-M great in Lowlight AF....or should I say "Touch AF". When the light is low, I simply use the touch-focus to direct the camera where to focus. My success rate using touch-focus is quite high. You should try it even on moving kids, using AF is just too slow, using Thumb-Touch-AF is much MUCH FASTER.

That is why EOS-M is so livable in spite of its slower than usual AF. Touchscreen get a lot of credit here. I wish Sony embraced touchscreen in the next A6100.

Greggen said:

Sure. There is no ef-m portrait but an adapter and the new 50mm stm ain't much bigger then Sonys 50mm. And I do like macro quite a bit and the Ef lenses work better with eos m then any lens with adapters do on a6000 (as far as I can tell).

Click to expand...

Yup, canon-to-nex AF adapter is really SLOW, and slow AF remove the main reason to switch to Sony in the first placed.

Greggen said:

So as you can guess I would like to stay with m system because of the lenses but is the af on m2 enough to take pictures of anything moving? I'm not talking about sports or so. Just a slightly moving person/child. Of Course there is the m3 but I really like the small size of the m2 and the price of course. I more or less loved everything with the m except the af. Even the lcd is bright enough for outside use (at least I had been for me).

Click to expand...

Yeah, Canon has great lens collection. It is the only reason why I keep coming back to canon

prime instinct said:

Greggen said:

prime instinct said:

I have had the M and currently have an M2 and Sony a6000. The M2 AF is definitely better than the M's, and definitely worse than the a6000. I prefer the Canon build quality, lenses, and UI, but the Sony is, frankly, a better camera. For casual use, the M2 is great.

Click to expand...

Agree with everything you said. One thing I'm kind of counting with is that the m3 will get an firmware update to fix some issues, improve the af a bit and drop in price. That, together with the sweet lenses seem like something that would suit me perfectly. So going for m2 wouldn't be optimal right now, but MAYBE an updated m3 (or m4) is more likely the Sony releasing as good lenses as the Ef-ms.

Click to expand...

If you end up going with A6000, the Sigma primes are the ones to get. The 19mm and 30mm are not as bright or sharp as the EF-M 22mm, but they're definitely not disappointing. 60mm is extremely sharp from what I've seen.

M2 with 22mm is a wonderful combo - small, light, cheap, and super sharp right from wide open. Plus that Canon color rendering.

Click to expand...

But he sigmas doesn't even utilize a6000 af to the fullest. Of course it might still be better then m2 though.

Ahwell, I'm pretty sure you guys made me decide on staying with eos m for the moment. I just like the size and the 22mm too much ;D

Greggen said:

I recently sold my 60d as it was mostly laying at home. And a camera that doesn't take any pictures is always the worst kind. I was more or less just using my eos m but the af often hinders me from taking good pictures of children and such that you can't get to stand still.

For a week ago or so I was sure that I wanted to replace the eos m with a a6000 but the lenses just seem so boring. The pancakes just doesn't seem to be as sharp as the wonderful ef-m 22mm. The 55-200 seems to be better and lighter then Sonys 55-210. And 11-22 is just incredible.

Sure. There is no ef-m portrait but an adapter and the new 50mm stm ain't much bigger then Sonys 50mm. And I do like macro quite a bit and the Ef lenses work better with eos m then any lens with adapters do on a6000 (as far as I can tell).

So as you can guess I would like to stay with m system because of the lenses but is the af on m2 enough to take pictures of anything moving? I'm not talking about sports or so. Just a slightly moving person/child. Of Course there is the m3 but I really like the small size of the m2 and the price of course. I more or less loved everything with the m except the af. Even the lcd is bright enough for outside use (at least I had been for me).

Click to expand...

I would say: no. Pick up Sony A6000 you will be really happy. I had M1 and have M2 now. M2 is much better than M1 as other said here, and smaller than M1. However for AF and Video, Sony is excellent. I use A6000 with 50mm f1.8 OSS...in shooting theaters, the images are close to my previous owned Canon 6D with Sigma 35 Art. But I can capture more pictures than any Canon's because of A6000 huge fast AF system.

I am using M2 with EFs 10-18 stm lens (with adapter) since this wide angle lens is great on both image and price. For all other propose, I use A6000.

Sooo, I did it, I picked up an M2 and a 55-200 as well. So got the complete kit of lenses now and really really hope it will satisfy my needs. The resell value for EF-M stuff here in Sweden ain't super high so it would be a shame if I had to get rid of all this and jump to another system.

And to all you pointing in the A6000 direction, you may very well be right, I might switch system in a jiffy after using the M2 for a while. Though I think its more likely that I'll get an firmware updated, price dumped M3 instead ;D

Where did you buy from?

Mvh D

Simian Rhyme said:

Where did you buy from?

Mvh D

Click to expand...

That one, all ready have all the stuff in there but been watching used prices and think I can get around $350 for M and those items. And now I can compare the lenses with the ones I have, maybe I'm lucky, hehe.

A bigger risk for customs of course but told him to write it down to $150 (we will have to see what the customs have to say about that XD).

I hope so...

I killed my Pentax DLSR (it took a big effort of constant dropping and drenching in the sea over several years).

The search for a new camera took me in the Fujiflim X-e2/X-M1 and Olympus OMD-M5 and M10. One day I picked up an M in a shop for a laugh and smiled instead.

after much effort to track on down in NZ I bought an M2 last night.

i find it interesting that you considered the Sony.

i considered the sony a6000 until I used one. Blah. The Olympus runs all over it for joy and ease of use and the fuji is just divine elegance. The Fuji takes, in my mind, the nicest images, then Oly then Sony (they are soulless).

So I ended up with the M2 because it was small, light and cheeky and the lenses are relatively cheap. To me It stands head and shoulders above all the other ILMC as a design study. It may be flawed, but, let's face it that actually makes it more attractive. Lord knows it will drive me mad at times, but that makes the journey more interesting.

What I would like to see is a 11 ish mm pancake prime...