M5 or XT-2 for hiking?

daniela

EOS RP
Aug 19, 2012
239
1
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
 

bholliman

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 6, 2012
1,473
0
USA
www.flickr.com
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. :eek:

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!
 

9VIII

EOR R
Feb 8, 2013
1,843
0
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.
 

Frodo

EOS RP
Nov 3, 2012
288
14
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.
 

raptor3x

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2012
554
44
State College, PA
whumber.com
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.
 

Dylan777

EOS 1D MK II
Nov 17, 2011
5,515
6
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.
 

dcm

Good or bad - it's not the gear.
Apr 18, 2013
741
79
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.
 

scottkinfw

Wildlife photography is my passion
Hey Dylan, you didn't sell off all of your Canon kit did you?
scott

Dylan777 said:
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.
 

hambergler

EOS T7i
May 15, 2011
53
0
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.
 

bhf3737

---
Sep 9, 2015
473
496
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
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.
 

daniela

EOS RP
Aug 19, 2012
239
1
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?
 

dcm

Good or bad - it's not the gear.
Apr 18, 2013
741
79
daniela said:
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.
 

bholliman

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 6, 2012
1,473
0
USA
www.flickr.com
Congratulations on the new equipment, I think you will enjoy it.

dcm said:
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.
 

bholliman

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 6, 2012
1,473
0
USA
www.flickr.com
9VIII said:
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
 

Dylan777

EOS 1D MK II
Nov 17, 2011
5,515
6
scottkinfw said:
Hey Dylan, you didn't sell off all of your Canon kit did you?
scott

Dylan777 said:
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
 

Frodo

EOS RP
Nov 3, 2012
288
14
daniela said:
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
 

bf

EOS RP
Jul 30, 2014
248
13
bholliman said:
9VIII said:
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.
 

9VIII

EOR R
Feb 8, 2013
1,843
0
bf said:
bholliman said:
9VIII said:
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.
 

bf

EOS RP
Jul 30, 2014
248
13
9VIII said:
bf said:
bholliman said:
9VIII said:
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.