Which EOS M camera for me?

KEG wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

KEG wrote:

rz64 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

M100 vs M200:

M200 advantages:

The AF is much better on the M200.

1. It has Dual Pixel eye-detect autofocus
2. It has 2 EV better working range: EV -4 - 18 (f/1.4). M100 has -1 - 18 (f/2.0).
3. It has Spot AF
4. M200 has up to 143 AF points. M100 has 49

The M200 has a Digic 8 prosessor. M100 has Digic 7. (Overall the M200 feels much snappier.)

It can shoot in C-RAW format.

It has "Ambience Priority" and "White Priority" options in the AWB settings.

Digital Lens Optimizer is added to the "Lens aberration correction" in the menu.

Battery life of approx. 315 shots (vs. 295)

It can shoot vertical video.

It can shoot 4K, 24p video (1.6x crop)

M100 advantages:

Sensor cleaning and wifi button.

I wish my M200 had the wifi button just so I could have another button to customize.

I don't understand why they would remove the sensor cleaning function. Does it add that much to the cost!?

Canon gives and Canon takes. I bet they made the M200 "too good" so they had an internal poll on what feature to remove. And this time the sensor cleaning option won. (With the M6 Mark II the "Remove the EFCS" option won the poll.) Or maybe they just spin a wheel of fortune.

it sucks when they dumb down

A7C + Samyang f/1.8 + 28-60mm is the way to go

M = dead end

RF full frame = closed mount

RF aps-c isn't dying as it's not alive yet (if ever), and it's still a closed mount

Honestly, I really don't understand why the question "which EOS M camera for me?" is answered by "Sony A7C ..... is the way to go" (?).

Do you reply in the Sony FF forum, that "Canon EOS M is the way to go"?

Getting RP or R is considerably less expensive than getting A7c.

Geeeeez !!!

Is it really so hard to understand that this is the EOS M Talk forum ???

(Or that OP's question is about M cameras ?)

At this point it is almost a civic duty to inform anyone of other options, I mean, I like EOS M very much and I have practically all the native lenses but at this point in time I would not be buying into it.

That's the surest way of making Canon discontinue it as soon as possible.

My suggestions is as follows:

if you own EOS M gear:

1. Buy the lenses you lack
2. Buy a new camera as a backup/insurance policy

If you own any other EOS gear:

1. Get a R10 and EF-RF adapter.

The R10 is an 850D substitute, it's far too close to the size of my EOS R to replace EOS M. I'm more tempted by the R7, but it's three times the price I'm prepared to pay for an APS-C body. The mount adapter came with my EOS R four years ago, but it's definitely a must for owners of EF or EF-S lenses.

2. Wait for 2 months to see what Canon is going to announce.

2 months is far too short a wait for that.

If you don't own any EOS gear:

1. Go find the cheapest sony E mount you an find and start collecting ff glass for it.
2. Or go with Fuji
3. Or go with Panasonic

I kind of went with both building EOS R and M setup but my feeling is that by this time next year anything which isn't RF something will be discontinued.

I felt when Canon introduced the EF mount in 1987 that they were taken aback by how quickly the market deserted FD mount, despite their best efforts to keep it going (the FD 200mm f/2 a year after the EF model, the T60 in 1990 etc.).  A lot of that was the general desertion of manual focus (who remembers the Canon EF-M?). I really do hope this isn't going to happen with EOS M as there isn't a comparable range of tiny cameras with its combination of image quality, price and size not RF-S, not E, not Micro four-thirds, nor X or Z mounts.