...allow me to provide a statement or two...
1. To begin with, both cameras are nice ergonomically and both obviously are 24 MP instruments. The X-T100 has a perceivable better build feel to it than the EOS M50 and currently you can probably pick up either for a similar price point to the other one. I've listed (what I perceive to be) the positives and negatives below. Like any other opinion to a question, it's all subjective. But I'm replying based on my use and experiences with these two cameras. All too often, one can observe folks providing speculation or negative comments to cameras they've actually never used - and since it's a brand other than what they use...thus the negative comments.
2. Positives of the X-T100:
a. Build quality (a perceptive feel) - has some heft to it.
b. That wonderful Fuji color tonality.
c. Superb (cleaner) high ISO capabilities. I get ISO 12,800 images that can look stunning really.
d. The kit XC 15-45 F3.5-5.6 IS is optically superior in so many ways with more consistency between copies. Additionally the wide end equivalent focal reach of 22.5 MM puts it into semi super wide angle range. When using this kit lens, most of the time I don't feel the need for a wide angle lens. It's superb for scenics, architectural or large group portraits.
e. FW Updates - Fuji continues to release relevant FW updates for this camera, among of which (to this date) several have already been released.
f. The X-T100 is a superb stills photographer camera (not video).
g. A wide variety of lens choices - the largest APS-C variety of lenses available from any given manufacturer. And even the lower tier entry level XC kit lenses are superb.
3. Positives of the EOS M50:
a. Has a smaller form factor (size) and resembles a small DSLR.
b. A delight to use. For me (subjective, I know), the EOS M50 (and other EOS M series cameras) adhere to one of the original goals of mirrorless in general - that is, a smaller size factor. It's comfortable to hold and use.
c. Has a nice, warm color tonality.
d. Has superb and speed AF capabilities due to the dual pixel AF system - even in darker scenes.
d. Has better video capabilities (if you're into video).
e. Has a pleasant, easier to decipher (and use) menu system.
4. Negatives of the X-T100 (perceived and subjective):
a. Poor (and ridiculous) 4K IQ levels (15 fps - daaaaaaaaa)
b. AF for fast moving objects definitely not up to par.
c. Camera should really be used for general stills photography scenarios only, at which point it will excel.
5. Negatives of the EOS M50 (again, perceived and subjective):
a. Less than ideal higher ISO capabilities. I typically don't try to go higher than ISO 3200 - 4000 if I have to. Fuji has Canon beat in this department by a long mile.
b. Absolutely horrible EF-M lenses choices. Currently, although Canon has released a total of 9 EOS M bodies since the original was first released some 6 + or - years ago, there are currently only a total of 9 EF-M lenses available for the EOS M system, half of which are just OK, while the primes and the absolutely superb 11-22 wide angle zoom are stellar. It should read more like only 8 lenses because they stopped making the original EF-M 18-55 kit lens (although plenty can still be found on eBay). Granted, Canon recommends you also use their EF to EF-M adapter to allow the use of all of their lenses, but then it all becomes unwieldy with regards to appearance, size, and balance. If that doesn't bother you , then by all means, you'll have a larger lens selection with the available of plenty of EF (FF) and EF-S (APS-C) lenses.
c. Focusing in on the kit lens - the EF-M 15-45 F3.5-6.3 IS STM - it has a nice build quality feel to it (even though it's all plastic) and quite small. However, the history with the severe lack of consistency between different copies, is well documented. Additionally, it's a very slow lens. I went through 4 of them until I got a good copy. Of course, like anything else, if you get a good copy, you'll be all smiles. Bad ones (or marginal) ones will give you decentering from minor issues at the corners all the way up to entire right or left sides of the frame being blurry.
d. Canon is very stingy with FW updates. When they do release - in particular, for the EOS M system - you are lucky. If there are operational issues with a particular EOS M camera, Canon would much rather wait until they release the next model.
6. Summary...
I can say that I enjoy using both systems without a doubt. The Canon EOS M system holds true to the original goal of having smaller mirrorless cameras (now I'm referring to the APS-C EOS M system - not their larger FF "R" system).
However, as I've stated on several other forums from time to time, if I was forced to have to scale back from my current use of several systems - those being the EOS-M, Fuji X, Micro 4/3, and Samsung NX cameras - to just one camera system, well, I would settle on keeping the Fuji X system, hands-down!
7. Judging Colors...
Here are several samples below of familiar scenes from past postings which kind of give you an idea as to how colors are rendered by both cameras. Both cameras capture warm colors to a large degree, but color preferences can be a very subjective thing. The images below (from both the X-T100 and M50) feature their respective kit lenses (15-45). All were shot in RAW mode and converted with Photoshop ACR. JPG's were created using Irfanview at around 2000 x 1500 to 2200 x 1600 (or similar) in size - large enough to fill a screen, yet small enough to be manageable on line. The camera used will be shown underneath each image. Note - these were obviously taken at different times of year, so lighting and sky conditions will be different. Also, be advised that the images do not have any EXIF data in them. Why? When using the superb batch conversion program called "Irfanview," it strips EXIF data from JPG files created from TIF Images.
M50 and kit lens - taken at the end of March.
X-T100 with kit lens - taken during August.
M50 with kit lens - during November. Now please note that this particular 15-45 was sent back to Canon for decentering. Look halfway up on the far left side and you will notice blurring. In fact, look at the side of the building through the trees on the upper far left and you will see how blurry it is. That's the problem with this lens (often) in that one side or the other will be blurry. This was shot at F8 at 1/200 sec.
X-T100 with kit lens - taken during November.
M50 with kit lens - taken at ISO 3200...
X-T100 with kit lens at ISO 12,800 (this room was actually very dark, and I had the X-T100 on Auto ISO and the end result was a fairly clean shot for this ISO level, however, at the expense of making the room look like it was brightly lit - which was not the case.
M50 with kit lens at ISO 3200.
X-t100 with kit lens at ISO 12,800 - again, the lighting conditions were very similar to the ones shown in the M50 photos above, but the auto ISO on the X-T100 chose ISO 12,800 in this dimly lit room and in the process making it look much brighter than it really was.
