200d compared to 100d - exposure and responsiveness

It's probably just as well that you went that route as It is what I would have advised anyway.

I also have the SL2, and also had the SL1 before it.

It is a very good upgrade that Canon came up with there. Can't really say the same about the SL3 from what I have read at least.   Catering to the video crowd, something I'm not the least interested in either.

You will notice a considerable difference with the ergonomics, the hand grip being, in my opinion, much better.

The image quality I would say is virtually the same. Yes, there is a little increase in resolution, but unless you print a lot, you're not going to see much difference in virtually any other display method. I have prints from the SL1 and the SL2. Can't really say there is a heck of a lot of difference.

I also shoot with a 5Dmkll, and the prints at normal viewing distance are pretty indistinguishable too as far as overall print quality is concerned. Actually, the SL2 is slightly higher resolution, not that you can notice that in anything up to about 13x19.

The SL2 is a better camera than many would like to admit. Not a camera that caters to the male ego that much, so many will shy away.

I must add that I don't use it at high ISO's, just not in my nature having shot film for 40 yrs, so pretty much all my stuff is at ISO's up to 800 max,

The DR for the SL2 is actually higher than the 5Dll up to 400, and I can see it. Shows how much improvement has been made in recent years to APS-c sensors.

You may want to give the flip out screen a chance as it can be very handy. Do you do any macro/close-up type work? I find the SL2 to be excellent for that especially having the flip out screen.

Hope you enjoy it when it arrives.

Derek.