M100 or M6

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.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

I'm puzzled about the point of this thread. Are there any advantages of the M100 over the M6, other than price? I thought the whole point of the M100 was to offer a lot, but not all, of what the M6 offers at a much lower price.

Alastair,

I have heard some people say that they prefer cameras that don't have too many external controls and dials - it helps them focus on the process of making photos instead of fiddling around with the dials.

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.

Exactly! The question is pointless.

EsVeeFoto wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

I'm puzzled about the point of this thread. Are there any advantages of the M100 over the M6, other than price? I thought the whole point of the M100 was to offer a lot, but not all, of what the M6 offers at a much lower price.

Alastair,

I have heard some people say that they prefer cameras that don't have too many external controls and dials - it helps them focus on the process of making photos instead of fiddling around with the dials.

It depends on what you want, but if you ever plan to start using flash photography, M6 is your only choice. If you're planning on using larger EF/EF-S lenses, I'd also recommend the M6.

But if you're OK with no grip, not a lot of features, no (external) flash photography, and no larger EF/EF-S lenses, I'd probably go for the M100.

It's as close to the original EOS M as you can get (sans hotshoe), and that was a really fun camera to use.

verum lens wrote:

It's as close to the original EOS M as you can get (sans hotshoe), and that was a really fun camera to use.

Agree, verum. The original M was such a fun camera to use.

EsVeeFoto wrote:

I have heard some people say that they prefer cameras that don't have too many external controls and dials - it helps them focus on the process of making photos instead of fiddling around with the dials.

The less control a person uses in making an image, the less they are making a image.

One potential benefit of the M100 is that it may be easier to get into "no good cameras allowed" venues. With few external controls and no grip, it looks like just another "snapshot camera".

A marketing benefit of the lack of external controls is that its looks won't intimidate first time camera buyers.

I have owned the M, M2, and M3. When I "upgraded" from my M to M3, I was really disappointed. With the M and 22mm, I could easily slide the camera in and out of various pockets with ease. The M3 changed that. Even though it didn't look much bigger with the 22mm attached, it was a much tighter fit and teneded to snag on something much more readily. I was also paranoid the flimsy metal hinge mechanism for the tilt screen would just get torn off if I was not extra cautious. Sold the M3 and "downgraded" to the M2. With both my M and M2, I mounted a Franiec grip which I felt was much more comfortable and secure than the M3 grip.

Looking at the M100 vs M6, it is the same scenario again.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#719,709

From a top down view, the M100 is much thinner with a very smooth, rounded shape.  Nothing realy sticks out from the M100 body.  The M6 is a different story.  Not only is there the large grip, but some ot the top dials also protrude from the body.  The screen tilt mechanisms are also quite different.  I would have no concern about snagging the M100 screen.

As in the past, I have a big camera and a little camera.  The M100 could fit my needs for a "little" camera.  For me, the M3 and now the M6 occupy an awkward  middle ground that is neither small enough to be pocketable, nor capable of handling everything else I shoot.

If I was choosing one of these as my only camera, it would be a different story.  But in that situation, I would probably pick the M5 over either of these two.

Good analysis.  Thanks for sharing.

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 find comments like this incredibly misinformed.

What is great for one person isn't necessarily great for another. I've had many different cameras, but I find the M6 to be superb. I'm very happy with the IQ even coming from a Leica MP240, the size is excellent, the fact I can use my EF50mm f1.2 is brilliant and I can have C1 as photos, C2 for regular 24fps video and then the video option setup as 60fps video.

Add to this the tilting EVF I purchased very cheaply, and I couldn't be happier.

Quote all the on-paper specs you want, but so far I find the M6 to be the best mirrorless option I've owned.

WGPhotography wrote:

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 find comments like this incredibly misinformed.

The OP asked a question and I answered it. It might not be a popular answer with some hardened Canon fans but it is valid none the less.

What is great for one person isn't necessarily great for another. I've had many different cameras, but I find the M6 to be superb. I'm very happy with the IQ even coming from a Leica MP240, the size is excellent, the fact I can use my EF50mm f1.2 is brilliant and I can have C1 as photos, C2 for regular 24fps video and then the video option setup as 60fps video.

Add to this the tilting EVF I purchased very cheaply, and I couldn't be happier.

Quote all the on-paper specs you want, but so far I find the M6 to be the best mirrorless option I've owned.

I am glad you are satisfied with it. I never said the M6 was a bad camera but let's be honest, if price was no concern it wouldn't be the first choice for many photographers. The anemic EF-M lens catalog automatically disqualifies any M camera from a "price is no object" list.

MikeJ9116 wrote:

WGPhotography wrote:

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 find comments like this incredibly misinformed.

The OP asked a question and I answered it. It might not be a popular answer with some hardened Canon fans but it is valid none the less.

What is great for one person isn't necessarily great for another. I've had many different cameras, but I find the M6 to be superb. I'm very happy with the IQ even coming from a Leica MP240, the size is excellent, the fact I can use my EF50mm f1.2 is brilliant and I can have C1 as photos, C2 for regular 24fps video and then the video option setup as 60fps video.

Add to this the tilting EVF I purchased very cheaply, and I couldn't be happier.

Quote all the on-paper specs you want, but so far I find the M6 to be the best mirrorless option I've owned.

I am glad you are satisfied with it. I never said the M6 was a bad camera but let's be honest, if price was no concern it wouldn't be the first choice for many photographers. The anemic EF-M lens catalog automatically disqualifies any M camera from a "price is no object" list.

Firstly, I am certainly not a hardened Canon fan; I'm new to the system and haven't had a Canon camera for years. People really need to take a step back and think about what is important for them.

I see the current M lens range as a superb travel setup. The lenses are lacking in wide apertures but certainly not variety. On a forthcoming trip I'll have a range from 10mm to 200mm and everything is small enough to fit in one pretty small pacsafe bag, so I hopefully won't be lacking at all.

I've just come from a Leica MP240 and when you shoot Leicas for as long as I have, you really realise what's important. The final image. The colours and the overall "look" of Canon's images are superb, and they aren't clinical as I found with the Sony cameras I tried. They also aren't as 2D as the Micro Four Thirds systems I've used.

I can't stand getting into arguments about these sorts of things, as it really is a little silly, but the only things people moan about with the M6 are a lack of 4K (who cares, 1080p is much easier to deal with and I do a lot of video these days), a lack of lenses (addressed with EF/S lenses for the most part) and other things here and there.

My opinion is that the M system has the best colours in the mirrorless world alongside Fuji, but when you compare the prices of the fuji system, it quickly builds to much higher price points at MSRP than the Canon. Sony has too much of a clinical look and feels more like a computer than an actual camera (Canon have struck the balance of controls and computerisation vs Camera/tool very well with just enough customisability and dials etc, without making you have to stop and think for a few seconds before missing a shot), Nikon don't do anything decent in this market, and Micro Four Thirds consistently left me cold with colours and lack of any "pop"/DoF from both Olympus and Panasonic bodies.

It's a much better system than it's given credit for, but that's just my opinion.

I'm not particularly interested in 20fps, pro-res modes etc. Most of these things end up used once and left as gimmicks. I want a system that's small and light, but can cope with a variety of tasks well. For me therefore, the M6 works better than anything else I've found.

WGPhotography wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

WGPhotography wrote:

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 find comments like this incredibly misinformed.

The OP asked a question and I answered it. It might not be a popular answer with some hardened Canon fans but it is valid none the less.

What is great for one person isn't necessarily great for another. I've had many different cameras, but I find the M6 to be superb. I'm very happy with the IQ even coming from a Leica MP240, the size is excellent, the fact I can use my EF50mm f1.2 is brilliant and I can have C1 as photos, C2 for regular 24fps video and then the video option setup as 60fps video.

Add to this the tilting EVF I purchased very cheaply, and I couldn't be happier.

Quote all the on-paper specs you want, but so far I find the M6 to be the best mirrorless option I've owned.

I am glad you are satisfied with it. I never said the M6 was a bad camera but let's be honest, if price was no concern it wouldn't be the first choice for many photographers. The anemic EF-M lens catalog automatically disqualifies any M camera from a "price is no object" list.

Firstly, I am certainly not a hardened Canon fan; I'm new to the system and haven't had a Canon camera for years. People really need to take a step back and think about what is important for them.

I see the current M lens range as a superb travel setup. The lenses are lacking in wide apertures but certainly not variety. On a forthcoming trip I'll have a range from 10mm to 200mm and everything is small enough to fit in one pretty small pacsafe bag, so I hopefully won't be lacking at all.

The current EF-M range is mediocre at best with two lenses that are above average (i.e. 22mm and 11-22mm). I love the 15-45mm as a walk around lens in good light but that is about where its usefulness ends. If it wasn't for the M adapter, buying an M camera would be a frustrating experience for most experienced shooters. Especially if it were their only camera.

I've just come from a Leica MP240 and when you shoot Leicas for as long as I have, you really realise what's important. The final image. The colours and the overall "look" of Canon's images are superb, and they aren't clinical as I found with the Sony cameras I tried. They also aren't as 2D as the Micro Four Thirds systems I've used.

When considering IQ between the major brands it mostly comes down to personal preference. In reality, IMO, the differences otherwise are down to splitting hairs between them.

I can't stand getting into arguments about these sorts of things, as it really is a little silly, but the only things people moan about with the M6 are a lack of 4K (who cares, 1080p is much easier to deal with and I do a lot of video these days), a lack of lenses (addressed with EF/S lenses for the most part) and other things here and there.

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.

My opinion is that the M system has the best colours in the mirrorless world alongside Fuji, but when you compare the prices of the fuji system, it quickly builds to much higher price points at MSRP than the Canon. Sony has too much of a clinical look and feels more like a computer than an actual camera (Canon have struck the balance of controls and computerisation vs Camera/tool very well with just enough customisability and dials etc, without making you have to stop and think for a few seconds before missing a shot), Nikon don't do anything decent in this market, and Micro Four Thirds consistently left me cold with colours and lack of any "pop"/DoF from both Olympus and Panasonic bodies.

If you compare prices of camera bodies then the M cameras are not beating most of the cameras in their respective price ranges for features  and/or capability. Mention the lens catalog quantity and quality and the EF-M lenses will, on the whole, get slaughtered by the competition.

It's a much better system than it's given credit for, but that's just my opinion.

I'm not particularly interested in 20fps, pro-res modes etc. Most of these things end up used once and left as gimmicks. I want a system that's small and light, but can cope with a variety of tasks well. For me therefore, the M6 works better than anything else I've found.

I am glad you have found your MILC Nirvana in the M6.