M5 or XT-2 for hiking?

bholliman

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

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,699
874
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
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.
 

weixing

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
612
14
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

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
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 RP
Jul 30, 2014
249
13
AvTvM said:
...

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.
 

rrcphoto

EOS 5D MK IV
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
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

---
Sep 9, 2015
504
640
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
bf said:
AvTvM said:
...

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.
 

Attachments

Woody

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
1,151
58
bf said:
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.
 

LesC

EOS RP
Jun 27, 2013
267
67
Essex, UK
500px.com
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 ;)
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,828
1,055
Southeastern USA
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?
 

Frodo

EOS RP
Nov 3, 2012
321
24
Hi Les
Although the 6D is relatively small and light, the addition of the 24-70/2.8 makes it heavy. If I want lightweight with my 6D, I take my 35/2IS. But this reduces flexibility. If I add the 85/1.8, this weighs more than my 24-105/4.
If weight and volume are an issue with hiking, I take my M3 with 11-22 and 55-200. There is surprisingly little loss in IQ.
The M3 was relatively cheap in NZ with 18-55 and 55-200 (half the price of an XT-2 body only).