December 18, 2017, 09:29:38 AM

Author Topic: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?  (Read 7777 times)

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5483
Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #15 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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2017, 10:44:54 AM »

Frodo

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 209
Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #16 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
If gear matters: 5DsR, 6D, M3, Samyang 14/2.8, EF 24-105/4, EF 35/2.0IS, EF 50/2.5 macro, EF 85/1.8, EF 200/2.8II, EF 400/5.6, EF-M 11-22/4-5.6, EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6, EF-M 55-200/4.5-6.3, Ext 1.4x, Lifesize conv, Ext tube EF25, 430EXII, 270EX, Yongnuo 603C

bf

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 189
Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #17 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

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

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.
EOS M+6

9VIII

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1679
Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #18 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

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

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.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2017, 01:21:01 PM by 9VIII »

bf

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 189
Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #19 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

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

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.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2017, 03:43:20 PM by bf »
EOS M+6

bholliman

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1430
    • [color=blue]Flick[/color][color=red]r[/color]
Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #20 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.
5DsR, EF Lenses: 35mm f/2IS, Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC, 300mm f/2.8L II IS, 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-70mm f/2.8LII, 70-200mm f/2.8LII
M5, EF-M lenses: 22mm f/2, 18-150mm
https://www.flickr.com/photos/68928679@N05

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 5-1500mm f/1.0L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 13752
Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #21 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

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

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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2017, 10:56:44 PM »

weixing

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 587
Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #22 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.

AvTvM

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2942
Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #23 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.


bf

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 189
Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #24 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. 
EOS M+6

rrcphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2034
Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #25 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.

bhf3737

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
  • ---
Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #26 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.

Woody

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 987
Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #27 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.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2017, 10:34:13 PM by Woody »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2017, 10:32:02 PM »

LesC

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • 500px
Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #28 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 ;)
EOS 6D, EOS 80D, EOS40D, EOS100D, EF24-70F2.8L II, EF17-40 F4L , EF70-200 F4L, 1.4TC, EF100-400 F5.6L II, EF100 F2.8L IS, EFS18-135 STM Sigma 17-70, 430EX MkII, GPE-2, EOS M + 18-55M

http://500px.com/LesC

YuengLinger

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1530
Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #29 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?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: M5 or XT-2 for hiking?
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2017, 01:02:18 PM »