RLight wrote:
A wayback moment, besides I like telling stories (feel free to correct me Nnowak)
Once upon a time I had a 5DIII and some L's. They got too heavy and stopped going places. I tried the G1X II, it didn't cut it. Then, I tried the M + 22, the OG, and it delivered, but it was slowww.
I went against my better judgement and went all in on the M and picked up an M2 and all the EF-M glass at the time with one of them turret viewfinders as I could see the writing on the wall Canon was going to grow the system in short order. They did ala the M3, I was right. I ended up being one of them weirdo American's that imported it from Japan via Tenso because Canon in their infinite wisdom didn't make it available to USA for a while. But, I didn't know exactly what I was getting myself into with GAS, not being happy with what I had, yada yada yada. Insert DPR and the forums (used to be on the CR forum too).
Nnowak at around the same time had a 5DII and some L's and dipped into the M2, and then tried the M3, and hated the colors. Truth told, I did too, but I couldn't put my finger on it was the colors till later. That's a complicated subject btw as it's a mix of the AWB of the M3, and the CFA and metering system combined IMO.
Actually, I picked up the original M before it was even on fire sale. Later, like you, I imported the M3 from Japan via Tenso the moment it was released. While I wasn't thrilled with the color from the M3, that was the least of my complaints. My biggest issue was that the EF 50mm f/1.4 was my go to portrait lens on crop. The AF on the M3 was completely unusable with the 50mm f/1.4. A document from Canon UK lists the 50mm f/1.4 as "incompatible" with the M3. There were a lot of other AF issues with the M3. In good light it was faster than the M. In bad light it would completely fail to focus in situations where the M had no problem. I also was not a fan of the build quality or the clip on EVF. After too much frustration, I sold off the 2 week old M3 and bough the M2. During this time I was also shooting with the 70D, 5D, and 5D II.
He didn't go the M route. Like many got fed up, tried the G85 (wonderful camera I'm told)
The G85 is a great camera. It felt like a 3/4 size 70D which was one of my favorite Canon bodies. Long story short, Panasonic warranty service screwed me over with my Panasonic 100-400mm lens. After that I realized that it was not a system that I could trust investing several thousand dollars into. The G85 has truly amazing one-shot AF, but continuous AF was lacking for sports.
and then X-T2. And then, ended up going Fuji X as primary system over the 4/3, FF and M systems as time went on.
I first dabbled with the X-T1 and shot it alongside the G85 for a while with lenses like the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 and Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 respectively. Equivalence caught up with me. The m4/3 f/2.8 zooms were only equivalent to the smaller, cheaper, and faster Fuji 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0.
I will say this, I might agree with his reasons. If, you're going to do one system, the Fuji X is a logical choice for the well financed discerning enthusiast
Oh, the irony! I think I might know a certain "well financed discerning enthusiast" shooting with the RF 28-70mm f/2.0
due to it's mature lens lineup. However, this is where we have a tale of two cities here and our paths diverged. I stayed M and "toughed it out" while he consolidated on Fuji. I felt Canon should and would do a FF mirrorless, it was the holy grail. They eventually did, after going through the M5, G1X III and having lots of fun with them but for low light it didn't cut it. Insert the R. I swung the other side of the pendulum and went all in on the R and tried to make it a sorta M-like R-like system with cheaper, EF lighter glass. That's not the way to treat the R system. I figured out you need RF glass to make the most of the system. R + RF 35 may be the M5 II most folks have been waiting for, I'll give that anecdote as Dave Seeley when he reads this will probably give a thumbs up or nod to.
Anyhow, he's thinking I'm, less than wise, jumping back and forth this whole time and we debate over the years on the M forum as I kinda just stuck around because that's where the action is, lots of folks are joining it and looking for advice and I have spare time to kill in my endeavors. Some of my endeavors I have more time than others I might add.
Now I've come full circle and I've embraced what I should've 5 years ago... I have a FF system, (R) and, an M system. I use each for what it's supposed to be used. FF for bokeh/low light and M for portability. Nnowak uses his Fuji for both. The difference is one of what you pay, what you get and features.
I find it funny/ironic that many of the people knocking the price of Fuji lenses are the same people running dual full frame and crop systems.
I argue (regularly) the M system makes the most sense for most people (I feel it does, and it's the spiritual successor to the Rebel series, and even the Advanced Powershots to a degree on the higher end of things),
With the amount of money you and I blow on photographic gear, we probably do not qualify as "most people".
he argues against the Canon often because it (Fuji) gives what was lacking in the past. He's right, the X-T2 and T3 have better rendering than the M3. However, the M50 and M6 Mark II are game changers. They're real M cameras and he hasn't dipped his toes in them and is happy with his X-T2, at least I think he is (but he's still on the M forum, so maybe, maybe not?)
Image quality has never been one of my complaints of the Canon system. Video quality, yes definitely, but I have always liked the photos. I am probably a bit more video oriented than you which is part of what had me experimenting with Panasonic and Fuji. The M6 II video finally looks good, but it is arriving a few years late for me. I started adopting 4k back in 2016.
My biggest issue has always been lenses. Here is just one example... I tried the 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM... nice image quality, but f/4.0 wasn't bright enough. I tried the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM II... even nicer image quality, but that thing is just too massive (especially on an M2). I tried the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8... pretty good image quality and very nice size, but no IS and AF wasn't the fastest. The Sigma lens also required a massive amount of AF fine tuning on my DSLRs. Tried the EF 50-200mm f/3.4-4.5 L... fantastic size, but image quality was far below modern standards and the AF flat out wouldn't work with some bodies. This is just one example of the ridiculous amount of time and money I was wasting trying to find something that was the right fit within the Canon ecosystem. I was also hand converting Metabones speedboosters years ago in an attempt to better adapt EF lenses for filling the gaps.
I always loved the portraits I was getting with my 5D II and 100mm f/2.0, but I hated the frequent AF inconsistencies and the size of the body. My 70D had the best tracking AF of the bunch, but the lack of suitable crop lenses was always an issue. The M2 had the most accurate AF, but was slow and had the same issue of missing lenses. There I was with three different bodies and about $10,000 of Canon glass, and none of it would fit together in a combination that did what I personally needed. I also learned that I absolutely hate dealing with lens adapters.
I'm quite curious where he stands given Canon's recent moves in FF mirrorless and M, even if I may not agree with him.
The M6 II looks like a very nice body that should finally quash most of the perceived deficiencies compared to other crop mirrorless systems. The price seems a bit high, but knowing Canon, it will likely already have a discount by Christmas. Lenses are still an issue for me with no f/2.8 zooms and some missing bright primes.
The RF system looks like a hot mess for my needs. What I would want is the RP sized body with M6 II capabilities. For full frame lenses I would want a set of f/4.0 zooms and some f/1.8-f/2.0 primes.
Basically, for my needs, I want f/2.8 zooms on crop, or f/4.0 zooms on full frame. For primes I want f/1.2-f/1.4 on crop, or f/1.8-f/2.0 on full frame. I am looking for the Goldilocks mid level performance - not too slow and dark, not too bright and humongous. Canon has these lenses well covered in full frame EF mount, but EF-S, EF-M, and RF are all missing these lenses. I am sure Canon will get there eventually with the RF mount (EF-M is an unknown), but they are not remotely close right now. Nikon's Z system is probably the closest for me, but isn't yet there either.
