Thanks for your suggestions.
The matter is complicated.
I love my 5D but...
- I do like the idea of buying a light body plus a kit lens (18-55) to take with me all the times I'm not sure a DSLR is strictly needed. Maybe I could even get used to a even lighter, faster but less versatile fixed focal lenght EF-M 22mm or EF 40mm.
- I do like the idea of having a chance to shoot occasional videos (e.g. for my daughter's synchronized swimming: two minutes every six months) with a (slightly) higher quality and more controls with respect to my daughter's 1100D (T3).
- I would try occasional live-view shooting (macro photography, for instance).
I would also avoid wasting money in 2013 for new gear that I will seldom use, in order to have a more understanding wife I switch to the 5D3 in 2014.
Unless the 100D / SL1 price drops suddenly, the two remaining options are 600D (T3i) and M.
Considering that the 600D (T3i) costs about the same as the M, the choice is between ergonomy + better autofocus + viewfinder + rotating LCD and
weight + size + understatement.
Do you really want to get into a new series of lenses? Buying lenses for a M that only work on a M?? You can adapt EOS lenses to a M, but then you lose the benefit of size.
AF is also very slow.
That's a good point.
My thoughts led me to consider the M + 18-55 as a luxury "point and shoot", so I was not considering further EF-M lenses.
Actually, I think the heaviest part of your gear are the lenses. So, maybe buy a 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/2 for the 5D camera? The nice thing about your 5D is that it is not so temperamental regarding older lenses.
Good suggestion but... is there scientific evidence that people using 5 (five) non-circular aperture blades lenses can survive?
this is the compromise we all face - weight vs IQ. What's more important to the OP?
A second body could allow to choose the most appropriate in different situations.
Not much more odd than my 5Dc and 6D.
I would spend my money on a bag that will take your 5Dc with 24-105 and your 17-40 and 70-200 (and other accessories). That is traveling light (your wife may need some convincing). I know you love your 100, but for a trip like this it is the one to leave at home --- the others aren't. For what it's worth, last year I went to Rome and Venice with the 5Dc, 24-105 and 70-200. That kit worked for almost everything. At that time, I didn't yet have the 17-40. Now, I would bring it.
Where did you go wrong with your second daughter?
I wish my Italian was as good as your English.
i. I went to Paris last year (also) to test my new 17-40. In the beginnin it felt weird, and I remember how happy I was as I switched to the 100mm. I don't need to take sharp pictures of Paris when I can blur the Arc de Triomphe behind my wife.
ii. My second daughter liked the pink Nikon (she was 8 when she bought it) but I think I can convert her to the light side of the Force by lending her my old Powershot S5.
iii. Thank you
I just bought the EOS M for an up coming trip to Perth, Australia.
Decided to travel light and leave my 40D and lenses at home.
It's a easier choice for me as I don't have the 5D+24-105.
Please let us know if you survive to this risky experiment! I could be a second tester.
Take your 5D come hell and high waters. It's worth it. Pair it with a 40mm F2.8 (just get it!) and your 17-40L for landscapes and you're set. For most of the time, 5D + 40mm would be sufficient and light enough. Just bring your flash and 17-40 inside a bag and you're set.
I learnt something new (http://www.wordreference.com/enit/%20come%20hell%20and%20high%20waters
I like your approach.
Did I mention that my family and I took two 250 km trips by bike along the Donau river (2010) and Drava river (2011)? I took my Powershot S5 in 2010 and 5D+24-105 in 2011.
One point&shoot picture I took in 2010:http://www.investireoggi.it/forum/attachments/life-good-cafe/72595d1279186249t-thread-ufficiale-delle-vacanze-2010-img00117-20100709-1223.jpg