As soon as Canon releases a full frame EOS M or similar mirrorless, they have me onboard with the M system. Of course assuming a similar IQ as the modern full frame DSRL cameras. For landscapes and general photography I will trade my 5D mark II for a much lighter mirrorless, any time (hiking is getting harder with all the weight of the camera + lenses).
then for wildlife and some sports I do, 7D mark II with tripod/monopod wouldo do.
Now the question is how long do we have to wait?
For landscapes the EOS M + 11-22 is a pretty good alternative for hiking. The IS makes it really useful for those sunset and blue hour shots. Plus if you need a tripod a much smaller and lighter one is all you really need. If you shoot RAW you'll not notice a huge difference between the end result (after PP) of this set up and FF. It surprised me how good the IQ from the M actually is.
The closest lightest FF equivalent of the above combo is a Sony A7 / or 6D with a EF 16-35 f/4L IS. I'll let you calculate how much the difference in cost is. You have to ask yourself are you getting that much better IQ? Better - yes but ten times better? No way.
Thanks Zv for your input!
I actually thought about the EOS M some time ago, but still does not convince me. Even at a shop today took a look at it, but....
I forgot to mention that I also like to shoot stars and northern lights and thus a high iso performance is convenient. I am not convinced at all about the ISO in crop cameras. I bought a 550D for my gf and I was actually surprised at the very good IQ, just that the high iso is very bad. I also like the perspective of wide lenses for landscapes, stars and northern lights (have a sigma 12 24mm) , so for that matter a FF is the way to go. I also kind of got hooked to L lenses , at least if I can afford them, which is not always. I'd rather dont buy anhting if it is not L, but maybe I am wrong.
maybe not the M but seriously thinking in a 6D. Thought some time ago about the Sony A7 but still not 100% sure about lens compatibility.
Well, anyway, now in the process to get rid of the old 24 70 2.8 that weights darn too much, planning to go for version II. If Iwould not need 2.8 I would buy the f4, but the aperture has been nice, overall. Other alternatives are the 16-35mm 2.8 but maybe wait.
Also trying to sell a 24mm 1.4L II but difficult to sell in Finland for the price I want, people go for the zooms instead in most of the cases.
Well, maybe I should open a thread myself
Cheers from Finland!!!