Is it though? I mean, you can get a SL3 and lens for a hundred dollars more. Similar specs and it comes with a viewfinder and EF lens compatibility without an adapter. Not saying this isn't a nice little camera, just that it might not warrant two full "incredibles." Different bodies for different users I guess.
Thanks for your response.
I own (and use regularly while mated to the Canon EF 100-400 II) a 5DIII. I love it. I will continue to use it, especially for backyard birds and the like. For this usage, the optical viewfinder is essential.
I also use that body with the Canon EF 35mm f2 IS; great low-light and IS to boot.
But the EF format is almost yesterday's news...especially for young people such as my daughters...who love their Ms.
For the vast majority of today's photography newbies, I am quite confident that the smaller-and-lighter M200 (with the 15-45) is a better purchase, and will get used more, than the SL3 (FYI: I almost bought an SL2) you've described.
A lot of canonrumors readers whine about an anti-Canon bias over at DPReview. Whether or not that is true, I'm not certain.
But I do believe an anti-M bias exists here at canonrumors...and a goodly number of the posts in this thread serve as Exhibit A!
Repeat after me: Canon's (non-cinema) camera future revolves around two letters: R.
And M.