canon rumors FORUM

Gear Talk => EOS-M => Topic started by: daniela on September 01, 2017, 03:02:02 PM

Title: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: daniela on September 01, 2017, 03:02:02 PM
Hi Guys!
Autumn is coming, so hiking season will start soon. As I have to carry a lot of things for my children, I need an lighter MLS system. The 5D MKIV combined with 16-35mm and 24-105mm lenses, a lot of weight to carry.
I need this camera for shots at hiking (landscape), without an tripod, just out of hand for family album. Using it with an polarizer. On the days, when I go for real "landscaping", there is my backpack full of photographic stuff. But then I do not have to carry a lot form my childrens.   ;)
My expectations: good image quality, lightwheigt, small, polarizer-able
My husband will spend me an lighter system, as he preordered two D850 these days  ::)

I did an research in the net and found two cameras that will be interesting:
The Fuji XT-2 with the 10-24mm and an Xf50mm lens

Or the cheaper Canon M5 with the EF-M 11-24mm lens and an  EF-M 18-150mm 3.5-6.3 IS STM lens.
I know, the more than double so expensive XT-2 will offer an better image quality.
Do you know, if there is much difference in the image quality (mostly shots are at f8, Iso 100-400, RAW?)
If there is not much difference, are the lenses an good choice? Or some thing else?

Thank you
Daniela
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: BasXcanon on September 01, 2017, 03:53:30 PM
How about an Olympus TG model?
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: bholliman on September 01, 2017, 04:53:07 PM
The M5 and the lenses listed would be an excellent choice.  I have no Fuji experience.

The M5 + 22, 11-22 and 18-150 is what I use when I want to go light and for family outings with the kids.  I take mine hiking, on bike trips and for days at an amusement park or festival.  Not having to lug heavy full frame gear around makes these trips much more enjoyable, even if I give up a little with image quality.  It also makes my wife and kids happier, as the larger gear often gets in the way, and the little ones (ages 4-6-7) occasionally get bopped in the head or shoulder when I carry my 5DsR on a Black Rapid strap.  :o

The 11-22 is an excellent lens optically, probably the best EF-M lens.  The 18-150's versatility if great and its IQ is good for a super zoom.  I've owned all the Canon EF-M lenses except the 28mm Macro at some point, and I ended up selling all but the 22 f/2, 11-22 and 18-150.  I did some side by side testing and felt the 18-150 was sharper than the 15-45 and 18-55 and very close to the 55-200 in IQ.  These 3 EF-M lenses cover full frame equivalent of 19mm to 240mm with the 22 f/2 and 50 STM+adapter handling low light / shallow DOF duties.

I probably use my 22 f/2 lens the most with the 18-150 second.  The 11-22 is excellent, but I find I don't use it very much.  I tend to only shoot ultra wide for serious landscape or night sky photography, and I have better tools for those situations (5DsR+16-35 for landscape and M5+Rokinon 12mm f/2 for night sky).

Good luck with you decision!
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: 9VIII on September 01, 2017, 05:40:20 PM
Get the SL2.

Compared to the M5, the SL2: Weighs almost the same, has the same sensor, has over twice the battery life, has a more versatile flippy screen, has the same Mirrorless Autofocus plus the classic Rebel AF system (with a center point that is possibly still better for fast tracking), and it costs almost half as much.

The only real advantages to the M5 are all the fancy control dials and it has a much faster burst speed, the SL2 actually sucks at burst rate, but if the application here is "landscape" then IQ will be identical.
(Plenty of wildlife photographers made a career with slow burst rates for decades anyway)

For your lens, that's a bit tough, but even though the EF-S 10-18 IS STM is worse than the EF-M 11-22 in very nearly every way, at 10mm and f8 it's pretty close to the same IQ, and 1mm wider, and the EF-S lens costs 30% less.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=967&Camera=812&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=950&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

"At that specific aperture and focal length" the SL2 should give you virtually the same IQ for 40% less money.

But Wait There's More!
The EF-S 24mm Pancake is not nearly as wide, but it's faster, more compact (I'd say the SL2 with that is nearly as compact as any mirrorless) and MUCH cheaper.
You're looking at a $700 total cost with just the SL2 and 24mm Pancake (and it works well with all your big lenses if you should so desire)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=960&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=967&CameraComp=812&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



If money is no object then you might be happier with the controls on a Fuji or the M5, I'm still looking at getting something like that just so I can fiddle with dials all day, but if "the image" is all that matters then the latest Fuji sensors and the M5 and SL2 are practically identical. (You can compare Dynamic Range across the sensors here: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm )
The Fuji X-Trans color filter handles moire spectacularly well, but again the subject here is landscape and not portrait so that's probably less of an issue.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: Frodo on September 01, 2017, 07:09:58 PM
Last summer my wife and I walked through the Swiss Alps.  3 1/2 weeks, 450km, 32,000m altitude gain. The only photo gear I took was an M3, 11-22 and 55-200, with a Manfrotto tabletop tripod. And four batteries.
And a Garmin GPS that allowed me to geolocate the photos.
If I did the trip again, I'd take the same gear.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: raptor3x on September 01, 2017, 07:32:23 PM
I'm a bit biased but for a hiking specific camera I would strongly suggest looking at Olympus.  You get access to  very compact and extremely well sealed bodies with some high quality (and weather sealed) lenses to match.  You definitely are going to give up some image quality, although you can get that back and then some if you can shoot in HiRes mode, but in my opinion it's worth it for the weight reduction and reduction in pack volume for hiking.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: Dylan777 on September 01, 2017, 08:30:07 PM
XT-2 with:
1.  Fuji 23mm f2 WR
2.  Fuji 35mm f2 WR
3.  Fuji 50mm f2 WR

Even
4. Fuji 90mm f2 WR

These are Fuji best weather sealed lenses, still, compact, light weight and deliver high quality photos . After shooting with Fuji cams, I doubt you would pickup another Canon body.  I love my xt2, however, I replaced with xpro2 since I now have A9.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-nJWn9Jm/0/df2b9c94/M/i-nJWn9Jm-M.jpg)
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: dcm on September 01, 2017, 09:54:44 PM
I chose the M for my hiking needs when I wanted to go light.  I wanted a very light solution and didn't want to learn another system so I optimized for that.  I didn't have to learn new menu system, system quirks, or postprocessing.  My Canon FF experience is mostly transferrable to the M,  it just has some limitations.

The EF-M 11-22 is the primary lens used on my M3, usually attached to my pack strap.  It has served me well and stacks up reasonable well against my full frame in many conditions.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21667.msg625335#msg625335
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30942.msg628607#msg628607

I since upgraded and have both the M3 and M5.  I sometimes carry both with the wide angle on the M3 and the telephoto on the M5 where critical focus is more of a concern.  Saves lens changes in the field.

Before the 18-150 I usually carried the 55-200 for reach.  If I don't need the reach I can carry the 18-150.  If I need the reach it would be the 55-200 or the new 70-300 IS II USM depending my need for weight vs reach. 

I have the 22 but seldom found I used it on the trail.  I much prefer the 11-22 IS when I'm lugging a pack on my back.  I now prefer the 28 macro on the trail in case I run into a macro opportunity.  And it makes a sharp prime as well.

I might consider the other systems if I was looking for a single solution to replace both the M3/M5 and my 1DX2/6D.  But for me, I pull out the FF with L lenses for serious photography (even on the trail) or I go small/light (like around town with the grandkids).  I now shoot more with the M's than my FF gear, but it's pretty close.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: scottkinfw on September 01, 2017, 10:36:41 PM
Hey Dylan, you didn't sell off all of your Canon kit did you?
scott

XT-2 with:
1.  Fuji 23mm f2 WR
2.  Fuji 35mm f2 WR
3.  Fuji 50mm f2 WR

Even
4. Fuji 90mm f2 WR

These are Fuji best weather sealed lenses, still, compact, light weight and deliver high quality photos . After shooting with Fuji cams, I doubt you would pickup another Canon body.  I love my xt2, however, I replaced with xpro2 since I now have A9.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-nJWn9Jm/0/df2b9c94/M/i-nJWn9Jm-M.jpg)
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: hambergler on September 01, 2017, 11:35:58 PM
Love my Fuji kit but I am usually carrying that plus my 5DIII a lot of the time. Usually use 5D3 + 70-200 IS II and XT1 + 10-24.

but I would think a shoulder strap + 24-105 should be light enough if you can get it down to one lens?

Have no experience with the canon but I am completely satisfied with the Fuji as a mirrorless solution.  EVF on he Fuji is very good so I’m sure the xt2 is even better.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: bhf3737 on September 01, 2017, 11:37:10 PM
I have and used both systems XT-2 and M5 for casual trips and hiking. They are both very capable systems and do not disappoint at all. It comes down to familiarity with the system, overall size, color/quality taste, and perhaps cost.
I select one system over the other based on how busy the schedule is and how much extra time I might have for sorting and editing pictures on the way. When time is extremely tight, XT-2 is the camera. I found XT-2’s straight-out-of-camera jpegs and a handful of color simulations excellent, so no post processing and even no downloading of the camera files to the computer until getting back home. I put two 128G SD cards in it and fill them all the way. Dual slot cards and weather sealing also give peace of mind, somehow. Kit of choice is 10-24mm (not weather sealed for sunny days), 23mm f/2 and 50mm f/2 (weather sealed for snowy and rainy days).
On the other hand, if the schedule is not that tight, weather forecast is promising and lower weight is a priority, M5 with 22mm on it and 18-150mm in the bag will be the preferred kit.
Being said, neither system can replace the 5DSR, 11-24mm f/4L, 24-70 f/2.8 LII and 70-300mm f4-5.6L kit in terms of versatility and image quality.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: daniela on September 02, 2017, 04:54:02 AM
Thank you a lot for your answers.
I just returned from handling both bodies, and I think I stay with Canon, as my system is half the price of the XT-2 and Canon´s image quality at lower Isos is  not much worser than the XT-2.
I´ll take he three lenses.

Until now, it was not pleasing to carry the Eos 5D MKIV and the 16-35 III or another heavy lens in front of my chest.
It will be more pleasing with this body. How do you carry it, if you go hiking with an larger backpack?

Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: dcm on September 02, 2017, 05:09:29 AM

It will be more pleasing with this body. How do you carry it, if you go hiking with an larger backpack?


Peak Design Capture Pro works well with the M family.  Better than any strap system I've tried.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: bholliman on September 02, 2017, 06:37:11 AM
Congratulations on the new equipment, I think you will enjoy it.

Peak Design Capture Pro works well with the M family.  Better than any strap system I've tried.

I also use the Peak Design Capture Pro, very nice system.  When I use a strap its the Peak Design Leash, which I can adjust and use over my shoulder to carry the camera on my hip or shorten to carry around my neck.  I also use their wrist strap, all easy to interchange using their universal attachment anchors.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: bholliman on September 02, 2017, 09:21:31 AM
Get the SL2.

Compared to the M5, the SL2: Weighs almost the same, has the same sensor, has over twice the battery life, has a more versatile flippy screen, has the same Mirrorless Autofocus plus the classic Rebel AF system (with a center point that is possibly still better for fast tracking), and it costs almost half as much.

The SL2 does compare pretty favorably to the M5.  It is a little larger with a pancake lens attached an considerably larger with a super zoom (the OP mentioned use of one of these) attached.  But I was surprised that the size comparisons were so close.  The SL2 is an attractive, low cost alternative to mirrorless systems with many of the same benefits and a few additional advantages.

With pancake lenses mounted:

M5 + EF-M 22 f/2 = 532 grams, 72mm in depth (height and width similar)
SL2 + EF-S 28 f/2.8 = 578 grams, 93mm in depth
http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.349,715.439,ga,t (http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.349,715.439,ga,t)

Big difference with super zoom mounted:

M5 + EF-M 18-150 = 727 grams, 135mm in depth
SL2+ EF-S 18-135 = 968 grams, 166mm in depth
http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.608,715.545,ga,t (http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.608,715.545,ga,t)
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: Dylan777 on September 02, 2017, 10:44:54 AM
Hey Dylan, you didn't sell off all of your Canon kit did you?
scott

XT-2 with:
1.  Fuji 23mm f2 WR
2.  Fuji 35mm f2 WR
3.  Fuji 50mm f2 WR

Even
4. Fuji 90mm f2 WR

These are Fuji best weather sealed lenses, still, compact, light weight and deliver high quality photos . After shooting with Fuji cams, I doubt you would pickup another Canon body.  I love my xt2, however, I replaced with xpro2 since I now have A9.

hi Scott,
yes, sold all my  Canon DSLR gear and switched to mirrorless. Haven't buy a single Canon cams/lenses last 3yrs plus.

My current gear:
1. Fuji xpro2 + Fuji 23f2, 23f1.4, 35f2, 56f1.2 and 90f2 - MOST enjoyable mirrorless for me.

2. Sony A9 + native large primes. Will rebuy the 24-70GM + 70-200GM soon.

Take care,
Dylan
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: Frodo on September 02, 2017, 11:34:13 AM
It will be more pleasing with this body. How do you carry it, if you go hiking with an larger backpack?

Discussed here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33045.0;topicseen
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: bf on September 04, 2017, 12:31:04 PM
Get the SL2.

Compared to the M5, the SL2: Weighs almost the same, has the same sensor, has over twice the battery life, has a more versatile flippy screen, has the same Mirrorless Autofocus plus the classic Rebel AF system (with a center point that is possibly still better for fast tracking), and it costs almost half as much.

The SL2 does compare pretty favorably to the M5.  It is a little larger with a pancake lens attached an considerably larger with a super zoom (the OP mentioned use of one of these) attached.  But I was surprised that the size comparisons were so close.  The SL2 is an attractive, low cost alternative to mirrorless systems with many of the same benefits and a few additional advantages.

With pancake lenses mounted:

M5 + EF-M 22 f/2 = 532 grams, 72mm in depth (height and width similar)
SL2 + EF-S 28 f/2.8 = 578 grams, 93mm in depth
http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.349,715.439,ga,t (http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.349,715.439,ga,t)

Big difference with super zoom mounted:

M5 + EF-M 18-150 = 727 grams, 135mm in depth
SL2+ EF-S 18-135 = 968 grams, 166mm in depth
http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.608,715.545,ga,t (http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.608,715.545,ga,t)

I wanted to add that difference in lense sizes is the catch between SL2 and M bodeies. This is a goid quantitative comparision. Form factor will be more different.
I am using M series for my outdoor activities. Where they come short e.g. wildlife, I need lenses such as 100-400 that are more balanced with a more serious DSLR.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: 9VIII on September 04, 2017, 01:18:53 PM
Get the SL2.

Compared to the M5, the SL2: Weighs almost the same, has the same sensor, has over twice the battery life, has a more versatile flippy screen, has the same Mirrorless Autofocus plus the classic Rebel AF system (with a center point that is possibly still better for fast tracking), and it costs almost half as much.

The SL2 does compare pretty favorably to the M5.  It is a little larger with a pancake lens attached an considerably larger with a super zoom (the OP mentioned use of one of these) attached.  But I was surprised that the size comparisons were so close.  The SL2 is an attractive, low cost alternative to mirrorless systems with many of the same benefits and a few additional advantages.

With pancake lenses mounted:

M5 + EF-M 22 f/2 = 532 grams, 72mm in depth (height and width similar)
SL2 + EF-S 28 f/2.8 = 578 grams, 93mm in depth
http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.349,715.439,ga,t (http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.349,715.439,ga,t)

Big difference with super zoom mounted:

M5 + EF-M 18-150 = 727 grams, 135mm in depth
SL2+ EF-S 18-135 = 968 grams, 166mm in depth
http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.608,715.545,ga,t (http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.608,715.545,ga,t)

I wanted to add that difference in lense sizes is the catch between SL2 and M bodeies. This is a goid quantitative comparision. Form factor will be more different.
I am using M series for my outdoor activities. Where they come short e.g. wildlife, I need lenses such as 100-400 that are more balanced with a more serious DSLR.

The idea that small bodies don't work on large lenses is still just a common misconception.
For my first year with the 400f5.6 it was paired with an 1100D and as soon as I tried the 5D2 it felt totally unnatural.
The big bodies are just as detrimental to portability no matter what lens you have (barring something like the 1200mm f5.6).
When you're carrying and moving a big lens you're mostly accounting for size on one axis, if your camera body is close to the height and width of the lens then you can almost store the whole thing in a tube.
Whether sitting down or hiking, the smaller body allows the entire system to lay flat with your body, making it much more comfortable to hold and carry, not to mention doubling the weight of your camera body is always going to be a bad idea when you're hiking. However you can save weight, do it, the lens is necessary to get the shots but a heavy Full Frame body is not.
The latest Rebel Autofocus system (800D/T7i) is fantastic anyway and even supports f8 shooting.

Ideally Canon would take the SL2 and give it high speed internals, better AF, and maybe a Carbon Fiber body to make the Ultimate Wildlife Camera.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: bf on September 04, 2017, 03:40:42 PM
Get the SL2.

Compared to the M5, the SL2: Weighs almost the same, has the same sensor, has over twice the battery life, has a more versatile flippy screen, has the same Mirrorless Autofocus plus the classic Rebel AF system (with a center point that is possibly still better for fast tracking), and it costs almost half as much.

The SL2 does compare pretty favorably to the M5.  It is a little larger with a pancake lens attached an considerably larger with a super zoom (the OP mentioned use of one of these) attached.  But I was surprised that the size comparisons were so close.  The SL2 is an attractive, low cost alternative to mirrorless systems with many of the same benefits and a few additional advantages.

With pancake lenses mounted:

M5 + EF-M 22 f/2 = 532 grams, 72mm in depth (height and width similar)
SL2 + EF-S 28 f/2.8 = 578 grams, 93mm in depth
http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.349,715.439,ga,t (http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.349,715.439,ga,t)

Big difference with super zoom mounted:

M5 + EF-M 18-150 = 727 grams, 135mm in depth
SL2+ EF-S 18-135 = 968 grams, 166mm in depth
http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.608,715.545,ga,t (http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.608,715.545,ga,t)

I wanted to add that difference in lense sizes is the catch between SL2 and M bodeies. This is a goid quantitative comparision. Form factor will be more different.
I am using M series for my outdoor activities. Where they come short e.g. wildlife, I need lenses such as 100-400 that are more balanced with a more serious DSLR.

The idea that small bodies don't work on large lenses is still just a common misconception.
For my first year with the 400f5.6 it was paired with an 1100D and as soon as I tried the 5D2 it felt totally unnatural.
The big bodies are just as detrimental to portability no matter what lens you have (barring something like the 1200mm f5.6).
When you're carrying and moving a big lens you're mostly accounting for size on one axis, if your camera body is close to the height and width of the lens then you can almost store the whole thing in a tube.
Whether sitting down or hiking, the smaller body allows the entire system to lay flat with your body, making it much more comfortable to hold and carry, not to mention doubling the weight of your camera body is always going to be a bad idea when you're hiking. However you can save weight, do it, the lens is necessary to get the shots but a heavy Full Frame body is not.
The latest Rebel Autofocus system (800D/T7i) is fantastic anyway and even supports f8 shooting.

Ideally Canon would take the SL2 and give it high speed internals, better AF, and maybe a Carbon Fiber body to make the Ultimate Wildlife Camera.

Even if you are used to/like holding SL2 with a long zoom, the performance of this body is not equipped towards wildlife photography. To me, SL2 and SL1 form factor has always been a no-no even with a small lens.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: bholliman on September 04, 2017, 05:47:10 PM
The idea that small bodies don't work on large lenses is still just a common misconception.
For my first year with the 400f5.6 it was paired with an 1100D and as soon as I tried the 5D2 it felt totally unnatural.
The big bodies are just as detrimental to portability no matter what lens you have (barring something like the 1200mm f5.6).
When you're carrying and moving a big lens you're mostly accounting for size on one axis, if your camera body is close to the height and width of the lens then you can almost store the whole thing in a tube.
Whether sitting down or hiking, the smaller body allows the entire system to lay flat with your body, making it much more comfortable to hold and carry, not to mention doubling the weight of your camera body is always going to be a bad idea when you're hiking. However you can save weight, do it, the lens is necessary to get the shots but a heavy Full Frame body is not.
The latest Rebel Autofocus system (800D/T7i) is fantastic anyway and even supports f8 shooting.

Ideally Canon would take the SL2 and give it high speed internals, better AF, and maybe a Carbon Fiber body to make the Ultimate Wildlife Camera.

For me the size and shape of a 5D body is almost perfect with a long lens (70-200 or larger).  I love my M5, but  I've tried it with my EF-70-200 and 300 f/2.8 and don't like the way it handles.  I have larger than average hands and often the controls on the small M5 body are difficult to work since they are so close together.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: Mt Spokane Photography on September 04, 2017, 10:56:44 PM
Get the SL2.

Compared to the M5, the SL2: Weighs almost the same, has the same sensor, has over twice the battery life, has a more versatile flippy screen, has the same Mirrorless Autofocus plus the classic Rebel AF system (with a center point that is possibly still better for fast tracking), and it costs almost half as much.

The SL2 does compare pretty favorably to the M5.  It is a little larger with a pancake lens attached an considerably larger with a super zoom (the OP mentioned use of one of these) attached.  But I was surprised that the size comparisons were so close.  The SL2 is an attractive, low cost alternative to mirrorless systems with many of the same benefits and a few additional advantages.

With pancake lenses mounted:

M5 + EF-M 22 f/2 = 532 grams, 72mm in depth (height and width similar)
SL2 + EF-S 28 f/2.8 = 578 grams, 93mm in depth
http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.349,715.439,ga,t (http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.349,715.439,ga,t)

Big difference with super zoom mounted:

M5 + EF-M 18-150 = 727 grams, 135mm in depth
SL2+ EF-S 18-135 = 968 grams, 166mm in depth
http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.608,715.545,ga,t (http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.608,715.545,ga,t)

From what I've heard, the M5 like all mirrorless cameras has reduced quality at the edges, putting that lens closer to the sensor does make for some compromises, it particularly affects the dual pixel sensors.  Canon has issued some patents listing the issues with mirrorless DPAF cameras, so they are quite aware of the weakness.

The SL2 uses standard distances to the film plane, so expect a bit better performance at the edges.  All of this depends on comparing results with a lens of similar quality, and that's difficult to do.

I very much like the swing out lcd for taking tripod mounted images or even hand holding at unusual angles or overhead.  I can adjust the tripod to the right height for the perspective I want, then use manual focus with 5 or 10X magnification on the subject I select, and when in manual focus mode, I go to no magnification and touch the screen lightly to release the shutter.  The little camera is working out much better than expected.  I can, of course do something similat by using my smartphone tethered by wi-fi, but another gadget or hand is needed to hold the phone at just the right angle.

I have purchased and installed DSLR controller for my 5D MK IV.  I could install it on my SL2 but right now, its set to download images by wi-fi to my computer.  I'll likely assign that function to my eye-fi card.

At 1/6 the price of a 5D MK IV, its definitely worth looking at.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: weixing on September 05, 2017, 01:12:26 AM
Hi,
    After handheld both M5 + EF 100-400 II and 7D2 + EF 100-400 II setup on the field, I select the Canon 7D2 + EF 100-400 II as my handheld setup... M5 with 22mm become my general shooting setup.

    Although Canon M5 + EF 100-400 II is a lighter setup, but I become tired faster than using the heavier Canon 7D2 + EF 100-400 II setup... I think mainly because the balance of this setup is really bad and because of the small body, the controls are very close to each other, I use more energy trying to hold the setup steady while operating the camera.

    Anyway, back to topic, since you already had Canon lens, M5 is the logical option... but if you had the budget and willing to learn a new system, go ahead.... everyone love new "toys".  ;D

   Have a nice day.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: AvTvM on September 05, 2017, 04:46:18 AM
For hiking/light trips: M5/M6 (if viewfinder not needed) + 11-22 + 18-150.
Also consider the tiny, "dirt cheap", optically excellent EF-M 22/2 for an "ultralight, high IQ combo".

Fuji XT-2 does not offer better IQ. It is only bulkier and heavier and costs a lot more - especially the lenses. Wasted money, if you ask me.

Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: bf on September 05, 2017, 02:00:42 PM
...

Fuji XT-2 does not offer better IQ. It is only bulkier and heavier and costs a lot more - especially the lenses. Wasted money, if you ask me.

I think the OP made a good decision since she is already a Canon user.

Comparing IQ between XT-2 and XT-20 vs. M5/M6 would be interesting to me, specifically if one can share in-filed experiments. My initial guess was that Fuji might be the winner. The old DR discussion is still there. Even if sensors are close, on specs,  Fuji bodies offer more sophisticated focus system and higher frame-rate that can lead to better images. XT20 saves on price and bulkiness compared to XT-2. 
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: rrcphoto on September 05, 2017, 06:12:07 PM
I have to agree with the prior posters on the M5 + 11-22, 18-150mm.

it's honestly my go-to small camera gear and the 18-150 is just a great little super zoom.

*BUT* do use DPP's DLO on this lens.  it really starts to shine with DLO.  it becomes a near-L even in the corners with DLO.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: bhf3737 on September 05, 2017, 10:28:24 PM
...

Fuji XT-2 does not offer better IQ. It is only bulkier and heavier and costs a lot more - especially the lenses. Wasted money, if you ask me.

I think the OP made a good decision since she is already a Canon user.

Comparing IQ between XT-2 and XT-20 vs. M5/M6 would be interesting to me, specifically if one can share in-filed experiments. My initial guess was that Fuji might be the winner. The old DR discussion is still there. Even if sensors are close, on specs,  Fuji bodies offer more sophisticated focus system and higher frame-rate that can lead to better images. XT20 saves on price and bulkiness compared to XT-2.

I use both M5 and XT-2 systems and both are excellent. I agree that XT-2 is bulkier and more expensive but it also has several advantages such as intuitive controls, lens ecosystem covering fast f/1.4 ones and wide to 10mm and long up to 400mm, weather sealing, film simulations, etc., that one wants to pay for them or not.
I am not edge softness detector, shadow pusher or pixel peeper. To me, what it comes down to as IQ is whether the camera system can deliver pictures matching the preference of the photographer. And everyone's taste may be a bit different. XT-2 can produce straight-out-of-camera pictures, using one of the color simulators, that are pleasing to my eyes. M5 system can do similarly, but I usually need to add lens and color profile corrections and a little processing in Lightroom to get what I like.
As i said earlier both M5 and XT-2 systems are excellent on their own and they don't disappoint.
As Fall is approaching fast I have attached below two pictures taken using XT-2 system last Fall.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: Woody on September 05, 2017, 10:32:02 PM
Comparing IQ between XT-2 and XT-20 vs. M5/M6 would be interesting to me, specifically if one can share in-filed experiments. My initial guess was that Fuji might be the winner. The old DR discussion is still there. Even if sensors are close, on specs,  Fuji bodies offer more sophisticated focus system and higher frame-rate that can lead to better images. XT20 saves on price and bulkiness compared to XT-2.

Regarding sensor: I am always wary of Fujifilm's x-trans sensor because my favorite RAW editing program, Lightroom, can't cope with the unusual demosaicing algorithm.

Regarding Fujifilm's 'sophisticated focus system':
"As you can see from the video, the X-T20's tracking performance is pretty typical Fujifilm. The autofocus points appear slow to respond, and not very 'sticky' with regards to their original subjects. As with the X100F, though, performance is better than the interface's visualization suggests, with around 70% of the shots ending up in acceptable focus (available above the video).

Although Fujifilm has suggested face detection is improved on the X-T20: now making it available in continuous shooting mode, but we weren't particularly impressed."
- https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t20-review/6

If you are a jpeg user who hardly makes use of face detection in continuous tracking mode, then I guess the XT-20 is appealing because of the wide range of useful prime lenses Fujifilm offers.
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: LesC on October 03, 2017, 12:51:20 PM
My standard set-up for 90% of my photography - travel, landscape & general stuff is the 6D + 24-70F2.8 L MKII. I also use an 80D + 100-400 for aviation/wildlife & have a 100D (SL1) that's handy for family occasions etc when I'm just taking 'snaps'.

Whilst thinking of replacing the 6D with the MKII version I've also been looking at mirrorless systems in particular Fuji; the XT2 or XT20 and wondering if a switch to mirrorless would be feasible as FF gear can be a bit heavy at times if carried all day in a shoulder bag.

My concern though is whether I'd be having to accept a step down in quality going from FF with L lenses to a Fuji APSC sensor with obviously non-L lenses. Then there's the other stuff I'd miss - OVF, GPS, great battery life & the fact that although reasonably heavy, the 6D = 24-70 fits my hands just right (my 100D is very light & small but I feel I cant hold it as comfortably as I can the 6D. As to FF mirrorless, I can't see the point - the body may be smaller but the lenses are still large.

So I'm unconvinced by mirrorless for now at least. Maybe I just need to look at more comfortable ways of carrying my gear ;)
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: YuengLinger on October 03, 2017, 01:02:18 PM
SL2 is a non-starter.  I'd limit lenses, just suck it up and bring the 5D IV instead of getting involved in a whole new ecosystem for a trip.

Or get an 80D, which is a great "mini 5DIV."

But if I were going to go mirrorless, right now Fujii is hard to ignore.  Olympus sensor is simply too small for doing much more than posting on the web, despite what Olympus sponsored "pros" might say.

Then again, if you are truly doing mostly family snapshots...iPhone?
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: Frodo on October 03, 2017, 01:58:19 PM
Hi Les
Although the 6D is relatively small and light, the addition of the 24-70/2.8 makes it heavy. If I want lightweight with my 6D, I take my 35/2IS. But this reduces flexibility. If I add the 85/1.8, this weighs more than my 24-105/4.
If weight and volume are an issue with hiking, I take my M3 with 11-22 and 55-200. There is surprisingly little loss in IQ.
The M3 was relatively cheap in NZ with 18-55 and 55-200 (half the price of an XT-2 body only).
Title: Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
Post by: jolyonralph on October 03, 2017, 02:23:38 PM
I take my M5 with me on trips when I don't want to take a heavy camera. I normally take three lenses, the 11-22, the 18-150 and the 22mm. 

Very happy with this combination.