Why most people seem to switch to Fuji's mirrorless than Canon's M series?

Started 3 months ago | Questions
davev8
davev8 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,626
Re: Most? No. But...
4

noisebeam wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

jalywol wrote:

Those who do, do it for the lens selection.

Similarly, those who choose Micro 43s also have a vast lens selection to choose from.

Canon has chosen to market the M line to entry-level, modest budget, users.

This is clearly not true with the M6 and M6II. Some of us have been avid photographers for over forty years, and also own more expensive cameras and lots of bigger heavier lenses. The M6 and M6II are definitely marketed to me and people like me. The M50 and M100 and M200 fit your description more. The M6II is marketed to people, advanced experienced users among them, who want great image quality in a small camera that has all the capabilities of bigger heavier DSLR's.

They do not have the native lens offerings for the M line that would appeal to higher end users, even though the cameras themselves, at this point, are very capable.

Lens selection is only a factor, if you can't get the lenses you want to do the things you want. Henri Cartier-Bresson, hardly an entry-level photographer, used one lens for the vast majority of his pictures, and no more than one or two others his entire career. He wasn't an aberration in this regard. Canon's two excellent fast primes are enough for many people. The addition of Sigma's 16 and 56 make a very serious high-quality set. Add the 11-22 for landscapes and cityscapes, and the 18-150 for more casual use, and you're almost drowning in lenses. Perhaps it would be nice to have a high-quality fast zoom for sports, but it's not clear that an EF-M version would have many advantages over an adapted EF. For many years I've used a 70-200 F2.8L IS (versions I and II) for sports on a 7D and 7DII. When I adapt that lens to my M6II, even with the adapter, the combination is still smaller than using it on the 7DII.

The fact is that if you're a serious photographer, you'll know what you want and how to get it with almost every camera system. If you're put off the M system by the number of EF-M mount lenses available, the chances are that you're simply listening to others telling you that you need a vast selection of lenses to choose from. Perhaps someone tells you that "higher end" users need this vast selection, and you really want to think of yourself as a "higher end" user, so you convince yourself that you "need" a camera with a vast selection of native mount lenses to choose from.

There may be some photographers who desperately do want a lens that isn't available in EF-M mount, and don't want to adapt a lens (despite the ease of using the M adapter). Given those desires, it makes sense for them to look at other systems. But sweeping generalizations about "entry-level" and "higher end" photographers are like many other sweeping generalization, often conjured in an arm chair out of thin air.

Sony did the same thing with their APS-C offerings.

The manufacturers who have other irons in the fire (FF with bigger profit margin lenses), tend to look at APS-C as an afterthought. Since Fuji's major line is NOT FF, but APS-C, they only have one format to engineer their lenses for, so they built that selection out very thoroughly. (M43 also, although now that Panasonic has the FF SL series, who knows what they will do with the M43 lenses in future...) . So, users who want a lot of options in native glass, without having to go FF, are going to look first to the lines that have it.

I think Canon has really sold the M line short by their lack of development of better native glass. These would be great hiking cameras if there was a good native long tele zoom for them.

The 18-150 is perfect for that.

Similarly, a better quality, constant max aperture, wide to normal zoom would be a terrific option (say a 15-65mmm, or even just a better 15-45mm). However, who knows what goes through the minds of the corporate marketing departments....

-J

Biggest gap for me is a bright ultra wide (12-15mm) prime. Release one of those and I'll buy an M6ii

looks like nobody's in APS-c land going to take your money today

-- hide signature --

Attention Dislexsic i mean dyslexic person... This post will have many although spell checked, spelling and grammatical errs ..its The best its going get so no need to tell me its bad i know it is .....................................................................................................
My 5D IS a MK1 classic
..........................................................................................................
There is no argument for FF vs APS-c (or m43) with shallow DOF..as it's a law of physics and a very subjective personal thing if you want to make use of the shallow DOF only FF can offer
...........................................................................................................
Political correctness....somebody being offended on someone else's behalf....who that someone doesn't give a damn in the first place ....David Appleton.
.....................................................................................................
If you wait for a camera that will  tick all your boxes ....by then you will have more boxes to tick..... so the wait continues .....David Appleton
..................................................................................................
quoting irrefutable facts may get you branded a racist ..even if no race is involved .......David Appleton
.....................................................................................................

 davev8's gear list:davev8's gear list
Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 5D Nikon D70s Sony Alpha NEX-C3 Canon EOS M5 +9 more
davev8
davev8 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,626
Re: Most? No. But...

jalywol wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

jalywol wrote:

Those who do, do it for the lens selection.

Similarly, those who choose Micro 43s also have a vast lens selection to choose from.

Canon has chosen to market the M line to entry-level, modest budget, users.

This is clearly not true with the M6 and M6II. Some of us have been avid photographers for over forty years, and also own more expensive cameras and lots of bigger heavier lenses. The M6 and M6II are definitely marketed to me and people like me. The M50 and M100 and M200 fit your description more. The M6II is marketed to people, advanced experienced users among them, who want great image quality in a small camera that has all the capabilities of bigger heavier DSLR's.

The M6II is the first of the M series that is really marketed to those who want...MORE.

My point is that this is the first M series product that really requires better glass (higher res sensor, you know?) , and native better glass would be a good thing at this point. Before this, they could kind of let things slide and tell users who wanted "more" to use adapted glass...but that's going to be a problem going forward now as sensor design continues to advance.

Oh, and I have been an avid photographer since the late 1960's, when I got interested in it as a kid....so, yeah, that's over 50 years for me.

They do not have the native lens offerings for the M line that would appeal to higher end users, even though the cameras themselves, at this point, are very capable.

Lens selection is only a factor, if you can't get the lenses you want to do the things you want. Henri Cartier-Bresson, hardly an entry-level photographer, used one lens for the vast majority of his pictures, and no more than one or two others his entire career. He wasn't an aberration in this regard. Canon's two excellent fast primes are enough for many people. The addition of Sigma's 16 and 56 make a very serious high-quality set. Add the 11-22 for landscapes and cityscapes, and the 18-150 for more casual use, and you're almost drowning in lenses. Perhaps it would be nice to have a high-quality fast zoom for sports, but it's not clear that an EF-M version would have many advantages over an adapted EF. For many years I've used a 70-200 F2.8L IS (versions I and II) for sports on a 7D and 7DII. When I adapt that lens to my M6II, even with the adapter, the combination is still smaller than using it on the 7DII.

MOST PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO USE ADAPTERS IF THEY CAN AVOID IT.

The fact is that if you're a serious photographer, you'll know what you want and how to get it with almost every camera system. If you're put off the M system by the number of EF-M mount lenses available, the chances are that you're simply listening to others telling you that you need a vast selection of lenses to choose from. Perhaps someone tells you that "higher end" users need this vast selection, and you really want to think of yourself as a "higher end" user, so you convince yourself that you "need" a camera with a vast selection of native mount lenses to choose from.

You know what? You are bending yourself over into knots to defend the indefensible.

There may be some photographers who desperately do want a lens that isn't available in EF-M mount, and don't want to adapt a lens (despite the ease of using the M adapter). Given those desires, it makes sense for them to look at other systems. But sweeping generalizations about "entry-level" and "higher end" photographers are like many other sweeping generalization, often conjured in an arm chair out of thin air.

"Desperately"??? Uh no. It sure would be nice to have a native long lens in the format though. Sure, I am using an adapted 70-300mm, and it's fine, but a nice, native 100-400mm would be smaller than the EF version and a GREAT option for this cropped format series....

Sony did the same thing with their APS-C offerings.

The manufacturers who have other irons in the fire (FF with bigger profit margin lenses), tend to look at APS-C as an afterthought. Since Fuji's major line is NOT FF, but APS-C, they only have one format to engineer their lenses for, so they built that selection out very thoroughly. (M43 also, although now that Panasonic has the FF SL series, who knows what they will do with the M43 lenses in future...) . So, users who want a lot of options in native glass, without having to go FF, are going to look first to the lines that have it.

I think Canon has really sold the M line short by their lack of development of better native glass. These would be great hiking cameras if there was a good native long tele zoom for them.

The 18-150 is perfect for that.

No effin way. 18-150mm is not a long lens. A long lens is 100-400mm.

100-400 for backpacking !!!  or do you mean expedition

I guess I will not be able to explain this to you. I spent a lot of time over in M43 land, and having native glass at 100-300mm and 100-400mm (200-600mm, and 200-800mm FF equiv), in a reasonably sized package was just lovely. Sure I can adapt an EF 100-400mm, but that kind of defeats the purpose of the smaller system......

so tel me why are you not still with m43 with all the tiny long lenses ???

Once you have used a smaller system that has native glass that is designed for it, you really can see the benefits of it, and going back to adapting glass that is not designed for the system is always, no matter how well it works, going to be less than optimal in one or more ways. If it doesn't matter to you, well, fine, but it clearly DOES matter to those who have chosen other systems, or would LIKE to choose Canon, but won't, because of it.

-J

Oh, and PS: I have an M50 now. I did not get the M6II as I found it very uncomfortable in hand when I tried it in the store, and I vastly prefer an integrated EVF, not an attachable one. Fortunately, I also have an RP, so I can adapt the EF glass I have for it, so I do have a long enough lens for it...but I would LOVE a native 100-400mm, like I had in M43....AND a decent normal zoom. The 11-22mm, which I got, is terrific, but the 15-45mm is just nasty looking, and I sure am not going to be buying an adapted lens for that focal range. They really should have a higher end normal zoom available for the line....

-- hide signature --

Attention Dislexsic i mean dyslexic person... This post will have many although spell checked, spelling and grammatical errs ..its The best its going get so no need to tell me its bad i know it is .....................................................................................................
My 5D IS a MK1 classic
..........................................................................................................
There is no argument for FF vs APS-c (or m43) with shallow DOF..as it's a law of physics and a very subjective personal thing if you want to make use of the shallow DOF only FF can offer
...........................................................................................................
Political correctness....somebody being offended on someone else's behalf....who that someone doesn't give a damn in the first place ....David Appleton.
.....................................................................................................
If you wait for a camera that will  tick all your boxes ....by then you will have more boxes to tick..... so the wait continues .....David Appleton
..................................................................................................
quoting irrefutable facts may get you branded a racist ..even if no race is involved .......David Appleton
.....................................................................................................

 davev8's gear list:davev8's gear list
Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 5D Nikon D70s Sony Alpha NEX-C3 Canon EOS M5 +9 more
Asla
Asla Contributing Member • Posts: 519
Re: Big, expensive, lenses for Canon RP
1

justmeMN wrote:

007peter wrote:

Lastly, the entire new Canon EOS-R platform loom like a Dark Cloud over EOS- M.

A Dark Cloud over RP has been the price of RF-L lenses, even if you don't mind their size.

I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but in Japan (BCN) RP has been Canon's worst selling current mirrorless camera.

Hi!

I agree dark cloud of being price of rf- lenses. 3719€ from 85/1.2L is horrendous price. Yes, not all lenses are that expensive, and of course there is always that adapter. But still...

A s l a

jalywol
jalywol Forum Pro • Posts: 10,056
Re: Most? No. But...
1

davev8 wrote:

I guess I will not be able to explain this to you. I spent a lot of time over in M43 land, and having native glass at 100-300mm and 100-400mm (200-600mm, and 200-800mm FF equiv), in a reasonably sized package was just lovely. Sure I can adapt an EF 100-400mm, but that kind of defeats the purpose of the smaller system......

so tel me why are you not still with m43 with all the tiny long lenses ???

Because I have the RP, and I wanted to not have to carry two entirely different systems.  Since I have the 70-300mm for the RP, I can get close enough to the same reach as the 100-300mm on the M43, with just the M50 and EF-M adapter, rather than having to carry both a different body and different lenses.....And the sensor output on the M50 is actually lovely.  I am quite pleased with it for my purposes, it's just I wish the system had more native lens options, as the cameras themselves and their output is quite nice.

-J

TacticDesigns
TacticDesigns Veteran Member • Posts: 7,053
A different perspective?

arikfr wrote:

After years with a Canon DSLR (first 300D and now 60D) it's time for me to switch to a mirrorless system. Travelling with 3 kids (where one of them is sometimes on me) makes it less appealing walking around with a DSLR these days...

Sorry. Going to play a bit of devil's advocate here. LOL.

Been there. Done that.

Although not with 3 kids. Just 2.

But TBH . . . I kept shooting dSLR.

The camera that I added that I found most useful for travel with kids was a pocketable camera.

I used the Canon S90 (until I dropped it one too many times) or a Fujifilm XP50 waterproof compact point-and-shoot.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tacticdesigns/9228264181/in/album-72157631300869284/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tacticdesigns/7929712598/in/album-72157631300869284/

I found these great for vacation / travel as I had a camera with me if I wanted to grab a quick shot, but for most of the time, they'd be forgotten in my pocket.

And as my kids got older and wanted to go on the bigger amusement park rides, I could still have a camera with me, but I didn't have to leave it in the bin at the beginning of the ride, since I could slip it in my pocket and go on the ride myself.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tacticdesigns/20584176152/in/album-72157631300869284/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tacticdesigns/30625979036/in/album-72157631300869284/

Since my Canon S90 does not work anymore, I've been thinking my next advanced compact would be the Canon G9X (II). But I have been surviving with a Fujifilm XP80 for vacation this past year.

When looking at options it looks like as most people pick a Fuji X-series as their mirrorless option. I did remember that Canon's first mirrorless cameras weren't great, but the M50 seems to get decent reviews.

I've been eyeing the Canon M6 II. But that is out of my budget.

For a vacation camera, I like the no viewfinder thing, as it might make the camera smaller.

I put a bid through eBay for an old M100, but I wasn't exactly intent on getting it. If I got it for what I bid, it would have been a steal and I wouldn't have felt so bad if I got it. LOL.

But since I didn't get the mirrorless camera, I have just been taking my Nikon D7000 + 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 + 35mm f/1.8, my Fujifilm XP80 and sometimes my Pentax Q on vacation.

Ultimately I use the compact camera(s) the most.

And when I want better shots, and the occasion allows it, I take the Nikon dSLR or Pentax Q.

Since neither the Nikon dSLR or Pentax Q can fit in my jeans pocket, I find them both a little work to carry about versus a compact camera.

So for me, there is not that much difference between my dSLR and a smaller mirrorless camera.

I'm mostly interested in stills and not video and looking into having a travel kit that won't be too heavy. I'm usually travelling with a single lens (18-135 these days) and sometimes take a prime (used to be nifty-fifty but these days trying the 24mm pancake).

Another factor is that I'm usually shooting JPEGs and really don't have the time to edit my photos (3 kids...), so the out of camera JPEG quality is important to me.

What I find appealing about the M50 (aside from the lower price point) is that I can reuse existing lenses. Most of them aren't brilliant, but I grew to like them. On the other hand the 18-55 Fuji kit lens is amazing (based on reviews).

Is the M50 indeed a good option for me?

I'm not sure about you.

But for me, I am interested in the M series of cameras.

I think I might carry it around with me more than my dSLR cameras.

But knowing that I find compact cameras acceptable for vacation, an M series might just be lumped in with the dSLR (for me), as I find as small as my Pentax Q mirrorless camera is, I find it just as impractical to take on vacation days as my dSLR camera as neither will fit in my jeans pocket like my compact camera(s).

Sorry to play devil's advocate, but having started shooting when my kids were young, and having gone through many vacations, I have taken a different perspective (not focal length) on vacation / family cameras.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

-- hide signature --
 TacticDesigns's gear list:TacticDesigns's gear list
Fujifilm XP80 Nikon D5100 Pentax Q Nikon D750 Pentax *ist DS +9 more
photo_rb Contributing Member • Posts: 913
Re: Most? No. But...

noisebeam wrote:

Biggest gap for me is a bright ultra wide (12-15mm) prime. Release one of those and I'll buy an M6ii

Yes that would be nice.  I would even say it doesn't have to be fast but I might want to try the milky way some day.

 photo_rb's gear list:photo_rb's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +11 more
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 3,481
Re: Why most people seem to switch to Fuji's mirrorless than Canon's M series?

arikfr wrote:

After years with a Canon DSLR (first 300D and now 60D) it's time for me to switch to a mirrorless system. Travelling with 3 kids (where one of them is sometimes on me) makes it less appealing walking around with a DSLR these days...

When looking at options it looks like as most people pick a Fuji X-series as their mirrorless option. I did remember that Canon's first mirrorless cameras weren't great, but the M50 seems to get decent reviews.

I'm mostly interested in stills and not video and looking into having a travel kit that won't be too heavy. I'm usually travelling with a single lens (18-135 these days) and sometimes take a prime (used to be nifty-fifty but these days trying the 24mm pancake).

Another factor is that I'm usually shooting JPEGs and really don't have the time to edit my photos (3 kids...), so the out of camera JPEG quality is important to me.

What I find appealing about the M50 (aside from the lower price point) is that I can reuse existing lenses. Most of them aren't brilliant, but I grew to like them. On the other hand the 18-55 Fuji kit lens is amazing (based on reviews).

Is the M50 indeed a good option for me?

What's your budget for both the new body and the new lenses?

-- hide signature --

If your facts are different we could save the peace just by calling it copy to copy variation.

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M50 Canon EOS R Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM +11 more
sosh
sosh Regular Member • Posts: 153
Re: Most? No. But...
1

IDK about the OP claim, for me it is at least used to heaven LOL

Me almost moved to mirrorless, maybe finally (but it was very personal) - after original M got M6, and I'm very pleased. Fuji? Why anybody from Canon want to move? Diehard FF shooters will not. Established Canon users whenever EF or EF-S will not, only fraction with several brands in use and targeted to APS-C and pricey primes  will. So no anything to discuss, just my POV, sorry.

 sosh's gear list:sosh's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM +4 more
davev8
davev8 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,626
Re: Most? No. But...
2

jalywol wrote:

davev8 wrote:

I guess I will not be able to explain this to you. I spent a lot of time over in M43 land, and having native glass at 100-300mm and 100-400mm (200-600mm, and 200-800mm FF equiv), in a reasonably sized package was just lovely. Sure I can adapt an EF 100-400mm, but that kind of defeats the purpose of the smaller system......

so tel me why are you not still with m43 with all the tiny long lenses ???

Because I have the RP, and I wanted to not have to carry two entirely different systems. Since I have the 70-300mm for the RP, I can get close enough to the same reach as the 100-300mm on the M43, with just the M50 and EF-M adapter, rather than having to carry both a different body and different lenses.....And the sensor output on the M50 is actually lovely. I am quite pleased with it for my purposes, it's just I wish the system had more native lens options, as the cameras themselves and their output is quite nice.

-J

i dont think we will see long APS-c lenses from canon..in what must be over 15 years of canon APS-c DSLRs i can't think of a APS-c lens longer than 250mm

-- hide signature --

Attention Dislexsic i mean dyslexic person... This post will have many although spell checked, spelling and grammatical errs ..its The best its going get so no need to tell me its bad i know it is .....................................................................................................
My 5D IS a MK1 classic
..........................................................................................................
There is no argument for FF vs APS-c (or m43) with shallow DOF..as it's a law of physics and a very subjective personal thing if you want to make use of the shallow DOF only FF can offer
...........................................................................................................
Political correctness....somebody being offended on someone else's behalf....who that someone doesn't give a damn in the first place ....David Appleton.
.....................................................................................................
If you wait for a camera that will  tick all your boxes ....by then you will have more boxes to tick..... so the wait continues .....David Appleton
..................................................................................................
quoting irrefutable facts may get you branded a racist ..even if no race is involved .......David Appleton
.....................................................................................................

 davev8's gear list:davev8's gear list
Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 5D Nikon D70s Sony Alpha NEX-C3 Canon EOS M5 +9 more
sosh
sosh Regular Member • Posts: 153
Re: Most? No. But...

Right, anything longer than 200 will be just almost the same in size/weight, so we have 55-250 STM and longer with adapter working like native.

 sosh's gear list:sosh's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM +4 more
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 6,011
Re: Most? No. But...
1

jalywol wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

jalywol wrote:

Those who do, do it for the lens selection.

Similarly, those who choose Micro 43s also have a vast lens selection to choose from.

Canon has chosen to market the M line to entry-level, modest budget, users.

This is clearly not true with the M6 and M6II. Some of us have been avid photographers for over forty years, and also own more expensive cameras and lots of bigger heavier lenses. The M6 and M6II are definitely marketed to me and people like me. The M50 and M100 and M200 fit your description more. The M6II is marketed to people, advanced experienced users among them, who want great image quality in a small camera that has all the capabilities of bigger heavier DSLR's.

The M6II is the first of the M series that is really marketed to those who want...MORE.

My point is that this is the first M series product that really requires better glass (higher res sensor, you know?) , and native better glass would be a good thing at this point. Before this, they could kind of let things slide and tell users who wanted "more" to use adapted glass...but that's going to be a problem going forward now as sensor design continues to advance.

Oh, and I have been an avid photographer since the late 1960's, when I got interested in it as a kid....so, yeah, that's over 50 years for me.

They do not have the native lens offerings for the M line that would appeal to higher end users, even though the cameras themselves, at this point, are very capable.

Lens selection is only a factor, if you can't get the lenses you want to do the things you want. Henri Cartier-Bresson, hardly an entry-level photographer, used one lens for the vast majority of his pictures, and no more than one or two others his entire career. He wasn't an aberration in this regard. Canon's two excellent fast primes are enough for many people. The addition of Sigma's 16 and 56 make a very serious high-quality set. Add the 11-22 for landscapes and cityscapes, and the 18-150 for more casual use, and you're almost drowning in lenses. Perhaps it would be nice to have a high-quality fast zoom for sports, but it's not clear that an EF-M version would have many advantages over an adapted EF. For many years I've used a 70-200 F2.8L IS (versions I and II) for sports on a 7D and 7DII. When I adapt that lens to my M6II, even with the adapter, the combination is still smaller than using it on the 7DII.

MOST PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO USE ADAPTERS IF THEY CAN AVOID IT.

The fact is that if you're a serious photographer, you'll know what you want and how to get it with almost every camera system. If you're put off the M system by the number of EF-M mount lenses available, the chances are that you're simply listening to others telling you that you need a vast selection of lenses to choose from. Perhaps someone tells you that "higher end" users need this vast selection, and you really want to think of yourself as a "higher end" user, so you convince yourself that you "need" a camera with a vast selection of native mount lenses to choose from.

You know what? You are bending yourself over into knots to defend the indefensible.

There may be some photographers who desperately do want a lens that isn't available in EF-M mount, and don't want to adapt a lens (despite the ease of using the M adapter). Given those desires, it makes sense for them to look at other systems. But sweeping generalizations about "entry-level" and "higher end" photographers are like many other sweeping generalization, often conjured in an arm chair out of thin air.

"Desperately"??? Uh no. It sure would be nice to have a native long lens in the format though. Sure, I am using an adapted 70-300mm, and it's fine, but a nice, native 100-400mm would be smaller than the EF version and a GREAT option for this cropped format series....

The Fuji 100-400mm is bigger in length and diameter than the EF 100-400mm L II, but a little lighter.

sosh
sosh Regular Member • Posts: 153
Re: Most? No. But...
1

And yeah, any day I'l choose native 70-300 or some white w adapter instead of switching == proven, fast, feels like native ones. Sometimes for me it looks like somebody wanna tele miracles despite the optics physics when complaining about compact teles - there are NOTHING to talk about in reality in 200+ territory with good quality being compact, and don't tell me about MFT equivs

 sosh's gear list:sosh's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM +4 more
Ed B
Ed B Forum Pro • Posts: 10,689
Re: Why most people seem to switch to Fuji's mirrorless than Canon's M series?
3

arikfr wrote:

After years with a Canon DSLR (first 300D and now 60D) it's time for me to switch to a mirrorless system. Travelling with 3 kids (where one of them is sometimes on me) makes it less appealing walking around with a DSLR these days...

When looking at options it looks like as most people pick a Fuji X-series as their mirrorless option. I did remember that Canon's first mirrorless cameras weren't great, but the M50 seems to get decent reviews.

I'm mostly interested in stills and not video and looking into having a travel kit that won't be too heavy. I'm usually travelling with a single lens (18-135 these days) and sometimes take a prime (used to be nifty-fifty but these days trying the 24mm pancake).

Another factor is that I'm usually shooting JPEGs and really don't have the time to edit my photos (3 kids...), so the out of camera JPEG quality is important to me.

What I find appealing about the M50 (aside from the lower price point) is that I can reuse existing lenses. Most of them aren't brilliant, but I grew to like them. On the other hand the 18-55 Fuji kit lens is amazing (based on reviews).

Is the M50 indeed a good option for me?

I'm a person who used Canon exclusively from the day Canon came out with their autofocus cameras and EF lenses.

When I made the switch to digital I bought a 10D camera and stayed with Canon DSLRs and lenses until the day I decided to try mirrorless and ended up buying a Fuji X-E1 and two Fuji lenses.

I don't have even one negative thing to say about Canon and probably would have never tried a Fuji camera if Canon had made a mirrorless camera, at the time I "switched".

I think the Canon M series cameras have really become great cameras and I definitely think a person who currently uses a Canon DSLR should consider an M camera if they want to try mirrorless.

With that said, I also have to admit that I have no regrets about switching to Fuji. Fuji cameras and lenses are excellent.

picktherighttoolforthejob Regular Member • Posts: 106
Re: Most? No. But...

Alastair Norcross wrote:

jalywol wrote:

Those who do, do it for the lens selection.

Similarly, those who choose Micro 43s also have a vast lens selection to choose from.

Canon has chosen to market the M line to entry-level, modest budget, users.

This is clearly not true with the M6 and M6II. Some of us have been avid photographers for over forty years, and also own more expensive cameras and lots of bigger heavier lenses. The M6 and M6II are definitely marketed to me and people like me. The M50 and M100 and M200 fit your description more. The M6II is marketed to people, advanced experienced users among them, who want great image quality in a small camera that has all the capabilities of bigger heavier DSLR's.

They do not have the native lens offerings for the M line that would appeal to higher end users, even though the cameras themselves, at this point, are very capable.

Lens selection is only a factor, if you can't get the lenses you want to do the things you want. Henri Cartier-Bresson, hardly an entry-level photographer, used one lens for the vast majority of his pictures, and no more than one or two others his entire career. He wasn't an aberration in this regard. Canon's two excellent fast primes are enough for many people. The addition of Sigma's 16 and 56 make a very serious high-quality set. Add the 11-22 for landscapes and cityscapes, and the 18-150 for more casual use, and you're almost drowning in lenses. Perhaps it would be nice to have a high-quality fast zoom for sports, but it's not clear that an EF-M version would have many advantages over an adapted EF. For many years I've used a 70-200 F2.8L IS (versions I and II) for sports on a 7D and 7DII. When I adapt that lens to my M6II, even with the adapter, the combination is still smaller than using it on the 7DII.

The fact is that if you're a serious photographer, you'll know what you want and how to get it with almost every camera system. If you're put off the M system by the number of EF-M mount lenses available, the chances are that you're simply listening to others telling you that you need a vast selection of lenses to choose from. Perhaps someone tells you that "higher end" users need this vast selection, and you really want to think of yourself as a "higher end" user, so you convince yourself that you "need" a camera with a vast selection of native mount lenses to choose from.

There may be some photographers who desperately do want a lens that isn't available in EF-M mount, and don't want to adapt a lens (despite the ease of using the M adapter). Given those desires, it makes sense for them to look at other systems. But sweeping generalizations about "entry-level" and "higher end" photographers are like many other sweeping generalization, often conjured in an arm chair out of thin air.

Sony did the same thing with their APS-C offerings.

The manufacturers who have other irons in the fire (FF with bigger profit margin lenses), tend to look at APS-C as an afterthought. Since Fuji's major line is NOT FF, but APS-C, they only have one format to engineer their lenses for, so they built that selection out very thoroughly. (M43 also, although now that Panasonic has the FF SL series, who knows what they will do with the M43 lenses in future...) . So, users who want a lot of options in native glass, without having to go FF, are going to look first to the lines that have it.

I think Canon has really sold the M line short by their lack of development of better native glass. These would be great hiking cameras if there was a good native long tele zoom for them.

The 18-150 is perfect for that.

Similarly, a better quality, constant max aperture, wide to normal zoom would be a terrific option (say a 15-65mmm, or even just a better 15-45mm). However, who knows what goes through the minds of the corporate marketing departments....

-J

This. All of it. Every word.

Two letters are important to remember as far as Canon's and Canon's users futures are concerned. R and M.

And yes, all things being equal (but they never are)...R users will obtain 'better' images than M users. But the size-and-weight advantages offered by the M format are significant--and for many of us--M images are 'good enough'.

Check my posts in this forum for images of a bald eagle perched atop a dolphin at Disney's Dolphin hotel for an example of good enough (M6 +18-150).

My M6 Mark II arrives tomorrow (so I'm biased). But some of the posts on the general subject of Canon's M format are remarkably myopic, and incredibly biased in the other direction.

Particularly laughable is the notion that EF-S is anything but dead.

But I still enjoy reading these posts!

Finally, in my hands Canon's 100-400 II, when mated to the M6 with the necessary adapter...is an unwieldy combination (without a monopod). I find that the adapted 70-200 f4 IS lens handles nicely on the M6.

In part from recommendations on this forum, I've also ordered Canon's EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM Lens. I hope it handles well with the M6 Mark II.

-- hide signature --

Primary (Canon) tools: 5DMk3, M6, M2, S95, EF-EF-M adapter, Pro 100, LBP7660Cdn; EF 100-400 IS II, 70-200 IS f4, 24-105 f4 IS II, 35 f2 IS, 17-40 f4, 1.4x extender III; EF-M 18-150 IS, 28 IS macro, 11-22 IS, 22 f2, 15-45 IS, 18-55 IS; EF-S 17-55 IS; 270EX II and 580EX II Speedlites; Apple tool: iPhone 6s

thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 3,481
Re: Why most people seem to switch to Fuji's mirrorless than Canon's M series?

thunder storm wrote:

arikfr wrote:

After years with a Canon DSLR (first 300D and now 60D) it's time for me to switch to a mirrorless system. Travelling with 3 kids (where one of them is sometimes on me) makes it less appealing walking around with a DSLR these days...

When looking at options it looks like as most people pick a Fuji X-series as their mirrorless option. I did remember that Canon's first mirrorless cameras weren't great, but the M50 seems to get decent reviews.

I'm mostly interested in stills and not video and looking into having a travel kit that won't be too heavy. I'm usually travelling with a single lens (18-135 these days) and sometimes take a prime (used to be nifty-fifty but these days trying the 24mm pancake).

Another factor is that I'm usually shooting JPEGs and really don't have the time to edit my photos (3 kids...), so the out of camera JPEG quality is important to me.

What I find appealing about the M50 (aside from the lower price point) is that I can reuse existing lenses. Most of them aren't brilliant, but I grew to like them. On the other hand the 18-55 Fuji kit lens is amazing (based on reviews).

Is the M50 indeed a good option for me?

What's your budget for both the new body and the new lenses?

This topic seams to be more alive than the topic starter.....

-- hide signature --

If your facts are different we could save the peace just by calling it copy to copy variation.

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M50 Canon EOS R Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM +11 more
rrc1967 Contributing Member • Posts: 907
Re: Most? No. But...

noisebeam wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

jalywol wrote:

Those who do, do it for the lens selection.

Similarly, those who choose Micro 43s also have a vast lens selection to choose from.

Canon has chosen to market the M line to entry-level, modest budget, users.

This is clearly not true with the M6 and M6II. Some of us have been avid photographers for over forty years, and also own more expensive cameras and lots of bigger heavier lenses. The M6 and M6II are definitely marketed to me and people like me. The M50 and M100 and M200 fit your description more. The M6II is marketed to people, advanced experienced users among them, who want great image quality in a small camera that has all the capabilities of bigger heavier DSLR's.

They do not have the native lens offerings for the M line that would appeal to higher end users, even though the cameras themselves, at this point, are very capable.

Lens selection is only a factor, if you can't get the lenses you want to do the things you want. Henri Cartier-Bresson, hardly an entry-level photographer, used one lens for the vast majority of his pictures, and no more than one or two others his entire career. He wasn't an aberration in this regard. Canon's two excellent fast primes are enough for many people. The addition of Sigma's 16 and 56 make a very serious high-quality set. Add the 11-22 for landscapes and cityscapes, and the 18-150 for more casual use, and you're almost drowning in lenses. Perhaps it would be nice to have a high-quality fast zoom for sports, but it's not clear that an EF-M version would have many advantages over an adapted EF. For many years I've used a 70-200 F2.8L IS (versions I and II) for sports on a 7D and 7DII. When I adapt that lens to my M6II, even with the adapter, the combination is still smaller than using it on the 7DII.

The fact is that if you're a serious photographer, you'll know what you want and how to get it with almost every camera system. If you're put off the M system by the number of EF-M mount lenses available, the chances are that you're simply listening to others telling you that you need a vast selection of lenses to choose from. Perhaps someone tells you that "higher end" users need this vast selection, and you really want to think of yourself as a "higher end" user, so you convince yourself that you "need" a camera with a vast selection of native mount lenses to choose from.

There may be some photographers who desperately do want a lens that isn't available in EF-M mount, and don't want to adapt a lens (despite the ease of using the M adapter). Given those desires, it makes sense for them to look at other systems. But sweeping generalizations about "entry-level" and "higher end" photographers are like many other sweeping generalization, often conjured in an arm chair out of thin air.

Sony did the same thing with their APS-C offerings.

The manufacturers who have other irons in the fire (FF with bigger profit margin lenses), tend to look at APS-C as an afterthought. Since Fuji's major line is NOT FF, but APS-C, they only have one format to engineer their lenses for, so they built that selection out very thoroughly. (M43 also, although now that Panasonic has the FF SL series, who knows what they will do with the M43 lenses in future...) . So, users who want a lot of options in native glass, without having to go FF, are going to look first to the lines that have it.

I think Canon has really sold the M line short by their lack of development of better native glass. These would be great hiking cameras if there was a good native long tele zoom for them.

The 18-150 is perfect for that.

Similarly, a better quality, constant max aperture, wide to normal zoom would be a terrific option (say a 15-65mmm, or even just a better 15-45mm). However, who knows what goes through the minds of the corporate marketing departments....

-J

Biggest gap for me is a bright ultra wide (12-15mm) prime. Release one of those and I'll buy an M6ii

that lens has been out for ages.  the Samyang 12mm F2.0 has been available for years and is optically sharp with little or no coma.  It's small, and uses filters too.

Sure, there's no AF, but do you really need AF at 12mm?

nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 6,011
Re: Most? No. But...

rrc1967 wrote:

noisebeam wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

jalywol wrote:

Those who do, do it for the lens selection.

Similarly, those who choose Micro 43s also have a vast lens selection to choose from.

Canon has chosen to market the M line to entry-level, modest budget, users.

This is clearly not true with the M6 and M6II. Some of us have been avid photographers for over forty years, and also own more expensive cameras and lots of bigger heavier lenses. The M6 and M6II are definitely marketed to me and people like me. The M50 and M100 and M200 fit your description more. The M6II is marketed to people, advanced experienced users among them, who want great image quality in a small camera that has all the capabilities of bigger heavier DSLR's.

They do not have the native lens offerings for the M line that would appeal to higher end users, even though the cameras themselves, at this point, are very capable.

Lens selection is only a factor, if you can't get the lenses you want to do the things you want. Henri Cartier-Bresson, hardly an entry-level photographer, used one lens for the vast majority of his pictures, and no more than one or two others his entire career. He wasn't an aberration in this regard. Canon's two excellent fast primes are enough for many people. The addition of Sigma's 16 and 56 make a very serious high-quality set. Add the 11-22 for landscapes and cityscapes, and the 18-150 for more casual use, and you're almost drowning in lenses. Perhaps it would be nice to have a high-quality fast zoom for sports, but it's not clear that an EF-M version would have many advantages over an adapted EF. For many years I've used a 70-200 F2.8L IS (versions I and II) for sports on a 7D and 7DII. When I adapt that lens to my M6II, even with the adapter, the combination is still smaller than using it on the 7DII.

The fact is that if you're a serious photographer, you'll know what you want and how to get it with almost every camera system. If you're put off the M system by the number of EF-M mount lenses available, the chances are that you're simply listening to others telling you that you need a vast selection of lenses to choose from. Perhaps someone tells you that "higher end" users need this vast selection, and you really want to think of yourself as a "higher end" user, so you convince yourself that you "need" a camera with a vast selection of native mount lenses to choose from.

There may be some photographers who desperately do want a lens that isn't available in EF-M mount, and don't want to adapt a lens (despite the ease of using the M adapter). Given those desires, it makes sense for them to look at other systems. But sweeping generalizations about "entry-level" and "higher end" photographers are like many other sweeping generalization, often conjured in an arm chair out of thin air.

Sony did the same thing with their APS-C offerings.

The manufacturers who have other irons in the fire (FF with bigger profit margin lenses), tend to look at APS-C as an afterthought. Since Fuji's major line is NOT FF, but APS-C, they only have one format to engineer their lenses for, so they built that selection out very thoroughly. (M43 also, although now that Panasonic has the FF SL series, who knows what they will do with the M43 lenses in future...) . So, users who want a lot of options in native glass, without having to go FF, are going to look first to the lines that have it.

I think Canon has really sold the M line short by their lack of development of better native glass. These would be great hiking cameras if there was a good native long tele zoom for them.

The 18-150 is perfect for that.

Similarly, a better quality, constant max aperture, wide to normal zoom would be a terrific option (say a 15-65mmm, or even just a better 15-45mm). However, who knows what goes through the minds of the corporate marketing departments....

-J

Biggest gap for me is a bright ultra wide (12-15mm) prime. Release one of those and I'll buy an M6ii

that lens has been out for ages. the Samyang 12mm F2.0 has been available for years and is optically sharp with little or no coma. It's small, and uses filters too.

Sure, there's no AF, but do you really need AF at 12mm?

If you're shooting at shorter distances wide open, such as indoors, then yes.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads