AlanF said:
dak723 said:
YuengLinger said:
Regarding weight, I stand corrected. However, I stand by the roughly 20% difference in dimensions. In my mind, "bulk" refers to how much room it will take to stash in a bag. For this, I compare the height, width, and depth, which would be 15%, 15%, and 23%, respectively. Stashing in a bag means we are restricted to the smallest space available for any single dimension, not total surface area of the object. Does this make sense?
From Canon's European web specs:
80D: 139.0 x 105.2 x 78.5mm
M5: 115.6 x 89.2 x 60.6
Well, I don't want to make a big deal out of this - and how much of a size advantage may depend on the bag size you have - but even if you place each camera flat in the bag, you gain space in two dimensions, not a single dimension as you are using for your calculations. So, flat in your bag, the M5 is still 35% smaller not even counting the reduction in height.
+1
No, it doesn't make sense. The space occupied by an object is its volume, not length or area. For cubic bodies, the volume is the height x width x length, and as you first wrote, the M5 is 45% smaller by volume.
Clearly not making real world comparisons. The shape and size with a lens attached must be taken into account. The grip of the 80D is larger, which is where the depth increase comes mostly, but even with the smallest lens, the M5 catches up, as the lens protrudes well beyond the depth dimensions of the 80D.
If you discount shape and adding the lens, in other words, just go by volume, you are not in the real world when comparing effective, practical differences in size.
No, I have not handled an M5. I did borrow a Fuji X-T2 during Thanksgiving, and, comparing it directly to my 80D, realized it didn't make sense if all I wanted was something smaller. Once a lens is on the X-T2, it doesn't feel much smaller, and, ergonomically absolutely didn't work for me. I do see the M5 has a deeper grip.
Nobody is arguing that the M5 is not smaller than the 80D. But the practical difference is not great, and anybody who thinks they are getting something the size of a p&s that can be slipped into a pocket is going to be disappointed.
I still say the advantages of the 80D, even with the size difference, overwhelmingly outweigh the one "pro" of the M5, which is slightly less bulk.
If going for mirrorless, the Fuji X-T2 has better IQ and lenses, and, I believe, best-in-class EVF. (In fact the one that I borrowed really surprised me, even tempted me. Maybe the M5 is just as good--I don't know. Something that will be argued about) And from what I understand, it takes Canon ef lenses with and adapter also. But it isn't for me either, as I don't like EVF as currently implemented, want the longer battery life, better movie, menu, and touch screen functions.
My main point is, if already invested in ef-s and ef lenses, the small size and great features of the 80D outweigh the slight size advantage of an M5. Don't forget the articulated screen which is much more practical...
But, if somebody has no lenses, a slight weight and size advantage matter, why not encourage Canon to keep developing mirrorless? But they'd better get very, very good very, very fast. M5 is a good step.
And mirrorless does have a massive potential market as baby-boomers downsize for various reasons. Will younger enthusiasts see mirrorless as hip, or just another camera bigger than their smartphones?
