Peter63 wrote:
MikeJ9116 wrote:
Peter63 wrote:
MikeJ9116 wrote:
lilBuddha wrote:
MikeJ9116 wrote:
.
If you can't stand getting into arguments about silly things then don't post demeaning replies in response to a person posting a legitimate answer that was requested by the OP.
The OP was about the M100 v. M6 with price eliminated as a factor. You did not answer the question asked, but provided an answer outside of the original parameters.
Sure I did. It just wasn't the answer some wanted to hear.
I think there is more to it than that, people don't want to hear an opinion stated as absolute fact, especially when it differs from their first hand experience.
Name me one major MILC camera brand that has a worse native lens catalog than the EOS M system.
This is a divergence from your quote:
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 am still happy to offer my opinion:
I own 2 MILC systems, Sony and Canon APSC, between the 2, I prefer the lenses available for Canon. I use EF-M, EF, and EF-S lenses and consider them native for my own purposes.
So there isn't another major camera maker with a worse native lens catalog than Canon? If price is no option then a Fuji X-T2, along with the Fuji lens catalog, is a better choice than an M5 with EF-M lenses. I own an M3 and EF-M lenses so the Canon M system isn't an unknown quantity to me. What I am saying about the EOS M system has been said in this forum many times, and by many people.
Heck, I may end up buying the M100 but I won't be making excuses for Canon's horrible effort in providing a decent SYSTEM for its users. After five years Canon still expects us to slap on a heavy adapter and use large, heavy lenses to get the same performance other brands are giving their users with small, light weight native lenses. IMO, Canon's effort with developing the EOS M system has been quite pathetic.