M100 or M6

MikeJ9116 wrote:

WGPhotography wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

If price were no object, I wouldn't buy either one. There are far better cameras to pick in the MILC arena than these two options.

I find comments like this incredibly misinformed.

The OP asked a question and I answered it. It might not be a popular answer with some hardened Canon fans but it is valid none the less.

What is great for one person isn't necessarily great for another. I've had many different cameras, but I find the M6 to be superb. I'm very happy with the IQ even coming from a Leica MP240, the size is excellent, the fact I can use my EF50mm f1.2 is brilliant and I can have C1 as photos, C2 for regular 24fps video and then the video option setup as 60fps video.

Add to this the tilting EVF I purchased very cheaply, and I couldn't be happier.

Quote all the on-paper specs you want, but so far I find the M6 to be the best mirrorless option I've owned.

I am glad you are satisfied with it. I never said the M6 was a bad camera but let's be honest, if price was no concern it wouldn't be the first choice for many photographers. The anemic EF-M lens catalog automatically disqualifies any M camera from a "price is no object" list.

Firstly, I am certainly not a hardened Canon fan; I'm new to the system and haven't had a Canon camera for years. People really need to take a step back and think about what is important for them.

I see the current M lens range as a superb travel setup. The lenses are lacking in wide apertures but certainly not variety. On a forthcoming trip I'll have a range from 10mm to 200mm and everything is small enough to fit in one pretty small pacsafe bag, so I hopefully won't be lacking at all.

I've just come from a Leica MP240 and when you shoot Leicas for as long as I have, you really realise what's important. The final image. The colours and the overall "look" of Canon's images are superb, and they aren't clinical as I found with the Sony cameras I tried. They also aren't as 2D as the Micro Four Thirds systems I've used.

I can't stand getting into arguments about these sorts of things, as it really is a little silly, but the only things people moan about with the M6 are a lack of 4K (who cares, 1080p is much easier to deal with and I do a lot of video these days), a lack of lenses (addressed with EF/S lenses for the most part) and other things here and there.

My opinion is that the M system has the best colours in the mirrorless world alongside Fuji, but when you compare the prices of the fuji system, it quickly builds to much higher price points at MSRP than the Canon. Sony has too much of a clinical look and feels more like a computer than an actual camera (Canon have struck the balance of controls and computerisation vs Camera/tool very well with just enough customisability and dials etc, without making you have to stop and think for a few seconds before missing a shot), Nikon don't do anything decent in this market, and Micro Four Thirds consistently left me cold with colours and lack of any "pop"/DoF from both Olympus and Panasonic bodies.

It's a much better system than it's given credit for, but that's just my opinion.

I'm not particularly interested in 20fps, pro-res modes etc. Most of these things end up used once and left as gimmicks. I want a system that's small and light, but can cope with a variety of tasks well. For me therefore, the M6 works better than anything else I've found.