Canon EOS-M3 or Fuji X-T10
Discussion
My old 20D has reached the end of it's lifespan and I find that I'm not taking it places where I really should be carrying a camera.
I've decided to swap to a compact mirror-less camera and am thinking of either of the above, thing is I have the canon EF70-200 F2.8 which has been a fantastic lens and I will miss it's quality.
What do regular users think, should I keep with Canon so that I can carry on using the pro lens with an adapter (if it works well) or just buy the Fuji which comes out much better in the reviews?
I've decided to swap to a compact mirror-less camera and am thinking of either of the above, thing is I have the canon EF70-200 F2.8 which has been a fantastic lens and I will miss it's quality.
What do regular users think, should I keep with Canon so that I can carry on using the pro lens with an adapter (if it works well) or just buy the Fuji which comes out much better in the reviews?
Neither?
Both the Canon and Fuji systems have poor lens line ups (the fuji lenses are great quality but there bloody expensive and still lacking some essential affordable lenses for the system) and both canon and fuji still lag behind pretty much all of the competition with regards to continuous and tracking auto focus.
Neither of the above points may bother you, in which case, I would suggest the Fuji. Canon has never seemed to take mirrorless seriously and it doesn't look like they intend to either.
Look at Sonys offerings (although the lens situation isn't much better) or either Panasonic or Olympus.
Both the Canon and Fuji systems have poor lens line ups (the fuji lenses are great quality but there bloody expensive and still lacking some essential affordable lenses for the system) and both canon and fuji still lag behind pretty much all of the competition with regards to continuous and tracking auto focus.
Neither of the above points may bother you, in which case, I would suggest the Fuji. Canon has never seemed to take mirrorless seriously and it doesn't look like they intend to either.
Look at Sonys offerings (although the lens situation isn't much better) or either Panasonic or Olympus.
I don't think Samsung are continuing the camera business, in the UK at least. I don't think it's worth throwing money at a dead system.
Wouldn't recommend Sony either, due to the fact the lenses are massively overpriced and the standard zoom option is non existant.
If you like the lenses you have stick with Canon DSLRs, an 80D would be a great upgrade imho.
Wouldn't recommend Sony either, due to the fact the lenses are massively overpriced and the standard zoom option is non existant.
If you like the lenses you have stick with Canon DSLRs, an 80D would be a great upgrade imho.
I've switched from Canon full frame to Fuji XT-1 and I love the camera - very pleasant to use and great results.
The lens range is excellent - they are not cheap but pretty much sharp and well made across the board. Go for the XT-10 (or a second hand XT-1 maybe) and you won't regret it
The lens range is excellent - they are not cheap but pretty much sharp and well made across the board. Go for the XT-10 (or a second hand XT-1 maybe) and you won't regret it
Any camera will be pretty huge once you attach your Canon 70-200 2.8 to it: http://camerasize.com/compact/#288.7,599.7.2,ha,t
The big question is whether you want your whole kit to be smaller, or whether you want the option for the camera to be small when carrying just it and a single lens.
If its the first, I'd be looking at Olympus. The smaller m4/3 sensor allows all the lenses to be smaller making for a much more portable kit.
If it's the latter then consider two cameras instead. There is a lot to be said for the combo of a DSLR plus an RX100 (or similar).
The big question is whether you want your whole kit to be smaller, or whether you want the option for the camera to be small when carrying just it and a single lens.
If its the first, I'd be looking at Olympus. The smaller m4/3 sensor allows all the lenses to be smaller making for a much more portable kit.
If it's the latter then consider two cameras instead. There is a lot to be said for the combo of a DSLR plus an RX100 (or similar).
Mr Will said:
Any camera will be pretty huge once you attach your Canon 70-200 2.8 to it: http://camerasize.com/compact/#288.7,599.7.2,ha,t
The big question is whether you want your whole kit to be smaller, or whether you want the option for the camera to be small when carrying just it and a single lens.
If its the first, I'd be looking at Olympus. The smaller m4/3 sensor allows all the lenses to be smaller making for a much more portable kit.
If it's the latter then consider two cameras instead. There is a lot to be said for the combo of a DSLR plus an RX100 (or similar).
Or of course Panasonic for M4/3. Olympus make great cameras but if you want to photograph anything that moves, you'll be wanting a Lumix. The big question is whether you want your whole kit to be smaller, or whether you want the option for the camera to be small when carrying just it and a single lens.
If its the first, I'd be looking at Olympus. The smaller m4/3 sensor allows all the lenses to be smaller making for a much more portable kit.
If it's the latter then consider two cameras instead. There is a lot to be said for the combo of a DSLR plus an RX100 (or similar).
MysteryLemon said:
Neither?
Both the Canon and Fuji systems have poor lens line ups (the fuji lenses are great quality but there bloody expensive and still lacking some essential affordable lenses for the system) and both canon and fuji still lag behind pretty much all of the competition with regards to continuous and tracking auto focus.
I've never seen anyone suggest that the Fuji lens line up is poor, far from it in fact. If by affordable you mean a £100 50 1.8, it's never going to happen as they will never have the economies of scale of CaNikon, but the 18mm f2, 27mm 2.8, 35mm f2, 35mm 1.4, 60mm 2.4, and 16-50mm and 50-230mm zooms (both punching well above their weight) can all be had for under £300 each now.Both the Canon and Fuji systems have poor lens line ups (the fuji lenses are great quality but there bloody expensive and still lacking some essential affordable lenses for the system) and both canon and fuji still lag behind pretty much all of the competition with regards to continuous and tracking auto focus.
X-T1/X-T10/X-Pro2 Continuous AF is very, very solid now in my opinion. I'm shooting weddings, motorsport and wildlife with X-T1s and X-T10s and they've never let me down...
Motorsport: https://www.flickr.com/photos/harry_s/albums/72157...
Wildlife: https://www.flickr.com/photos/harry_s/albums/72157...
Edited by ukaskew on Tuesday 10th May 13:14
ukaskew said:
I've never seen anyone suggest that the Fuji lens line up is poor, far from it in fact. If by affordable you mean a £100 50 1.8, it's never going to happen as they will never have the economies of scale of CaNikon, but the 18mm f2, 27mm 2.8, 35mm f2, 35mm 1.4, 60mm 2.4, and 16-50mm and 50-230mm zooms (both punching well above their weight) can all be had for under £300 each now.
X-T1/X-T10/X-Pro2 Continuous AF is very, very solid now in my opinion. I'm shooting weddings, motorsport and wildlife with X-T1s and X-T10s and they've never let me down...
Motorsport: https://www.flickr.com/photos/harry_s/albums/72157...
Wildlife: https://www.flickr.com/photos/harry_s/albums/72157...
Read my post again and I never said the lenses were poor. I said they were great, just expensive and lacking in options. X-T1/X-T10/X-Pro2 Continuous AF is very, very solid now in my opinion. I'm shooting weddings, motorsport and wildlife with X-T1s and X-T10s and they've never let me down...
Motorsport: https://www.flickr.com/photos/harry_s/albums/72157...
Wildlife: https://www.flickr.com/photos/harry_s/albums/72157...
Edited by ukaskew on Tuesday 10th May 13:14
For example... A pretty standard "always on" zoom that would be essential for my own personal use (because I don't want to be carrying a bag of expensive primes with me everywhere I go) leaves me with the Fuji 18-135 F3.5-5.6. Nothing special spec wise, just your average standard zoom except you'll be looking at £4-500 for one. There isn't really another option. The 16-50 is too short (and a nasty, cheap plastic lens even if the image quality is acceptable) and a 50-230 means having to carry more lenses and changing them often.
It may not be a consideration if you have a large amount of disposable income or make money from your photography but for the average enthusiast, buying a fancy body and not being able to justify buying some nice lenses to go with it doesn't make sense.
MysteryLemon said:
Read my post again and I never said the lenses were poor. I said they were great, just expensive and lacking in options.
Read my post again, I never suggested that you suggested the lenses are poor (yes, we could go all day with this!), you said that the lens line-up is poor, which is entirely different, but I don't think particularly justified anyhow.As far as I'm aware there are no reasonably decent affordable 'do-it-all' lenses (like the Fuji 18-135) for any of the systems mentioned so far, in fact the 18-135 is pretty competitive in terms of bang for buck.
That's all by the by, anyway, as the OP is using a Canon 70-200 2.8, so I presume he's not adverse to swapping lenses and by no measure is that a cheap lens.
I've no idea of the budget in question, but an X-T10 18-55mm 2.8-4 / 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 would make a decent and relatively compact do-it-all setup for under £1k (if happy using Fuji UK Refurb, who are brilliant), and all that kit combined comes in at less weight than a Canon 70-200mm 2.8, remarkably.
Edited by ukaskew on Tuesday 10th May 13:50
ukaskew said:
Motorsport: https://www.flickr.com/photos/harry_s/albums/72157...
Wildlife: https://www.flickr.com/photos/harry_s/albums/72157...
Have you tried your set up with birds in flight / erratic subjects?Wildlife: https://www.flickr.com/photos/harry_s/albums/72157...
Edited by ukaskew on Tuesday 10th May 13:14
nellyleelephant said:
Have you tried your set up with birds in flight / erratic subjects?
I don't do birds, but it's been fine for wedding precessionals in fairly dark churches and my constantly moving 2 year old etc. It's no Nikon D750 sure, but it's way, way more competent than most would give it credit.I properly love my M3, possibly moreso than my 60D in fact. It is short of lenses, but you can mount the full range of canon glass with their adapter. Depending on the lens, I hear this can affect AF speed which you may or may not care about. I've never done it and am happy with the 18-55 but mainly leave the 22mm pancake on it.
I think the IQ is superb, and I tried it alongside a Sony A6000 which felt a bit flimsy to me, and an RX100 which was excellent, but fundamentally lacked the bigger sensor I was after.
The M3 is certainly behind in features but it doesn't trouble me, as it makes up for it in image, handling and build quality IMO. Burst mode is dreadful but again, I never use it so don't care.
As I say, I'm super happy with mine but would look at their limitations closely as I can see they might not suit everyone.
I think the IQ is superb, and I tried it alongside a Sony A6000 which felt a bit flimsy to me, and an RX100 which was excellent, but fundamentally lacked the bigger sensor I was after.
The M3 is certainly behind in features but it doesn't trouble me, as it makes up for it in image, handling and build quality IMO. Burst mode is dreadful but again, I never use it so don't care.
As I say, I'm super happy with mine but would look at their limitations closely as I can see they might not suit everyone.
Nothing wrong with the EOS-M. In fact it is a very versatile camera for all Canon fit lenses, from 150-500, down to the 22mm.
Image 19-02-2016 at 13.47 by Alan Perry, on Flickr
Image 19-02-2016 at 13.47 by Alan Perry, on FlickrGassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff