M100 or M6

Peter63 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Peter63 wrote:

Why do people keep making excuses for every other camera brand out there? None of them can match the performance/value of the 11-22, 22, and 28 macro.

There are plenty of options from other manufacturers that can match and/or exceed the performance of those three lenses. They just might not be as inexpensive or as small.

You are correct, I forgot about size:

Why do people keep making excuses for every other camera brand out there? None of them can match the performance/value/size of the 11-22, 22, and 28 macro.

Because you can only say that about three EF-M lenses.  With other brands that list is much longer.

None of them offer a native experience with the EF lens catalog, none have DPAF,

DPAF is good, but it is not the panacea that some believe it to be. There are some major limitations to DPAF that the other manufacturers do not need to contend with.

I agree, so far Canon has not been able to provide the stills tracking speed with DPAF that I desire.

none of them have controls that I like (as an M3 owner you should be able to relate).

After five years Canon still expects us to slap on a heavy adapter and use large, heavy lenses to get the same performance other brands are giving their users with small, light weight native lenses. IMO, Canon's effort with developing the EOS M system has been quite pathetic.

That is a little over the top. I will agree that I would prefer more small light weight lenses but the M system especially with the M5 or M6 is extremely capable, fun to use, and provides excellent results. I use EF-M lenses about 90% of the time and when I need something else, I don't hesitate to use EF. My current favorite EF lens is the 85 1.8. Searching B&H, the only other option is Sony which is much more expensive and only a half inch shorter compared to the Canon lens with adapter included. Other brands might have some smaller options but they also have limitations that Canon does not have.

You missed a couple in your search... Fuji XF 90mm f2.0 and Olympus 75mm f1.8

Yes, I only searched 85. Both of these are much more expensive even compared to the Sony.

There are also inherent advantages to using well designed native lenses on smaller sensor cameras versus using FF lens.  Resolution can be better as a result as the native lenses (and EF-S in Canon's case) put more of the light the lens collects on the sensor.  Much of the light a FF lens collects is wasted on APS-C cameras.  This isn't the case with every lens comparison but it is something to be considered when using FF lenses on smaller sensor cameras.

As an M5 owner, I find the lens catalog to be a non-issue. More important to me would be for Canon to match the tracking ability of Sony, for fast action I have to switch back to a DSLR if I want to stick with a Canon. They will also need to fix the long exposure shutter delay at some point, night sky pictures are pretty frustrating. I wish that the play and other rear button's layout was consistent with Canon's DSLRs, I wish the play button could be programmed to 100% zoom at the focus point, and I wish that you could delete an image while zoomed. Pretty minor stuff, for me the limitations of the M system dont feel like Canon is poking a stick in my eye. That would be more like my experience with A6000, maybe I should be over in the Sony forum discussing my feelings about that.

To the original Poster. If you are trying to decide between one of these. I'm guessing the M100 would be enough for you.

For me, I want the control of the M6:

-Easy to change setting with physical dials

-hot shoe is a must

-External microphone jack

-The grip

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Peter63 wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

lilBuddha wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

.

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.

The OP was about the M100 v. M6 with price eliminated as a factor. You did not answer the question asked, but provided an answer outside of the original parameters.

Sure I did. It just wasn't the answer some wanted to hear.

I think there is more to it than that, people don't want to hear an opinion stated as absolute fact, especially when it differs from their first hand experience.

Name me one major MILC camera brand that has a worse native lens catalog than the EOS M system.

As long as they have the lens or lenses you want, who cares about the entire catalog?

The Canon M lens range might be limited, but the lenses they do have are lightweight, compact and perform well.  I would consider buying the M100 just for the 22mm f2.  Neither Sony nor Fuji have a lens comparable to this.

It just sucks that the M100 doesn't come in body alone.  I have no need for 15-45mm.

HeyItsJoel wrote:

It just sucks that the M100 doesn't come in body alone. I have no need for 15-45mm.

Pith you aren't in U.K. then as it does here

averageguy wrote:

HeyItsJoel wrote:

It just sucks that the M100 doesn't come in body alone. I have no need for 15-45mm.

Pith you aren't in U.K. then as it does here

Pity****

I think the same as you. To this we must add that the M100 is lighter, so it is more pleasant to take from one place to another, I bought the M100.

MyM3 wrote:

EsVeeFoto wrote:

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.

The M6 is a really fun camera to use. Love the grip, the dials and buttons (can operate it with one hand) and the optional evf and flash for the hot shoe. Just a tiny bit bigger and so much more versatile.

I agree with everything except "a tiny bit bigger". Unfortunately the original M is much, much more compact, and the total depth (camera + lens) makes a big difference. M with the 22mm lens is much nicer. That's the only thing I don't like about the M6, although it is my favorite compact APS-C camera overall.