Re: Which EOS M camera for me?
rz64 wrote:
BrianOdell wrote:
I’m looking for a smaller, Canon camera to carry around with me when I want to leave all my other Canon gear at home (own an SL1, 70d, 5d ii, and an R6), for stills only. No video. I think I’ve settled on the m100 or the m200. Is there a big difference between these 2? AF speed? Low light performance? I can purchase any of the following from a friend: the EFM 11-22, 22 & 32, and the Sigma 56 lenses. I was also looking at the M6ii but since I own other cameras that are slightly “larger,” I wanted to keep this as small as possible…
Thank you!
I have M6i and M100, so my experience is limited to these two models. And I am making no videos, only stills.
To my mind, M100 is - for what it offers - an underrated camera. Although it has less dials than my M6, almost all settings can be changed within a few seconds. But you need to use the LCD, which is, however, very responsive. As it is obviously with all newer M-models.
AF with my M6 is (for me) never a problem. And this I can also confirm for M100. Concerning IQ, it is great with both cameras because of the same sensor.
If you really want a small camera, and you are ready to accept the operation via LCD, I don't see any problem with the M100. Only thing I miss is a hand grip as my M6 has.
One of the first things I did with the M100 was to stick a flipbac finger grip to it; that transforms the handling. Changing lenses the amount I do, I prefer the idea of the self-cleaning sensor of the M100 to the improved focussing of the M200, but I've not tried the latter. I find an eye level viewfinder a disadvantage for portraits as I'm as tall or taller than most of my subjects and it gives the impression that I'm looking down on them; while holding the camera at waist level gives a more flattering perspective. That, and the size of the thing is why I'm not tempted by an M50.