Mirrorless camera questions

[RShea]

So seems like Sony Alpha series are really pretty popular. I got a used Alpha 6000 a bit back but I think the sensor has had some damage to it. I also only so far have the stock Sony 16-50mm lens with it and nothing in telephoto. So before I either try and get a price to repair the body, or decide if I want to invest in another maybe 70 or 80 to 200 or so lens, I've been wondering about Canon and their M200 series. They have been on clearance and sale recently- $299 with the stock 15-45mm lens, or $199 for just the body. Not sure if all the other Canon lenses out there. Disadvantages that I am reading are no viewfinder for the Canon and square body without a grip off the side.

Any comments on the lenses available and quality of the glass between the 2 and price of the lenses?

https://www.rtings.com/camera/tools/...m200/8718/8736 Side by side comparisons.

[MakersTeleMark]

You'll get a better answer if you specify what you want to use it for. It's like asking you what computer to get.

[RShea]

You'll get a better answer if you specify what you want to use it for. It's like asking you what computer to get.

General photography- traveling, outdoors- hiking and possibly action shooting skiing, maybe some sports events and social events. Not really interested in portrait... Video less also at least for now.

[GrantN]

Unless you need smaller & lighter (u don’t) I’d just keep & repair your a6000. They are basically the same but the Sony has more features & you presumably know the Sony camera. Yours has a viewfinder only mode which saves a ton of battery & is useful on trips if that’s your thing. The canon at a brief glance looks to have a better autofocus tracking feature for moving subjects. Unlikely an issue if you’re stopped down (you would be on snow), more so an issue with faces moving close to the camera when shooting wide open. But again, my nex6 is older than your a6000.

FWIW my nex6 (previous model, basically same sensor) was sent in for repair (sensor issue iirc) for a reasonable price ~$150 but was surprisingly under warranty so they didn’t charge me. I had to pick it up from a random ass warehouse but it has worked fine since. It’s been great in tough conditions & the wifi feature to send full res pics to you or friends phone is definitely the best feature by far. That’s a dealbreaker if you’re shooting friends. Friends also appreciate that feature a ton

[smmokan]

FWIW, I really liked the Canon M series cameras (I used to have an M5, the predecessor to the M50) - good IQ, easy to use, nice and small. I never used the 15-45mm stock lens, but the 11-22 was super sharp (and light) and the 18-150 is a great all-rounder. I used it mostly for landscapes and MTB photography a few years ago.

[jm2e]

So seems like Sony Alpha series are really pretty popular. I got a used Alpha 6000 a bit back but I think the sensor has had some damage to it. I also only so far have the stock Sony 16-50mm lens with it and nothing in telephoto. So before I either try and get a price to repair the body, or decide if I want to invest in another maybe 70 or 80 to 200 or so lens, I've been wondering about Canon and their M200 series. They have been on clearance and sale recently- $299 with the stock 15-45mm lens, or $199 for just the body. Not sure if all the other Canon lenses out there. Disadvantages that I am reading are no viewfinder for the Canon and square body without a grip off the side.

Any comments on the lenses available and quality of the glass between the 2 and price of the lenses?

https://www.rtings.com/camera/tools/...m200/8718/8736 Side by side comparisons.

Three questions:
1) Where do you see $300 for M200 with lens?
2) Any idea why Canon dropped the whole line?
3) Are there many lens options for the eos-m bodies?

[smmokan]

FWIW, I'd never want a camera (like the M200) without a viewfinder for any kind of action sports, event or general sports photography.

[jm2e]

Yea, I totally get that.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[The Reverend Floater]

FWIW, love my A7iii

I guess it would make sense to post actuals and not shitty compressions available from my phone but whatevs.



Sent from my SM-S928U1 using Tapatalk

[RShea]

Three questions:
1) Where do you see $300 for M200 with lens?
2) Any idea why Canon dropped the whole line?
3) Are there many lens options for the eos-m bodies?

First item- Walmart was clearing the full camera with the mentioned lens for $299 when I originally posted this thread. Probably sold out or very hard to find as it was not every store to begin with. They had the body only for $150 or 1/2 half off regular price.




As to the other a 2 questions, Not sure on either one of them. If Canon is dropping this model, I can only surmise that they are replacing it with something newer. I am not even sure what lenses this takes- if it is same mount as the DSLR or completely different. Not a Canon camera expert, hence the thread.

[ex-powderbroker]

pretty sure you can use an adapter for the mirror less to work with any canon glass. been a few years since i was in the ecosystem though.

[jm2e]

As to the other a 2 questions, Not sure on either one of them. If Canon is dropping this model, I can only surmise that they are replacing it with something newer. I am not even sure what lenses this takes- if it is same mount as the DSLR or completely different. Not a Canon camera expert, hence the thread.

After a couple weeks digging into this rabbit hole and hoping to find something fun to buy, my impression is that camera based photography only works for people heavily invested (time and money) into photography these days. It feels like there's almost no reason to buy a small camera unless it's complementing a bigger camera collection and you're already numb to the expense and effort. Maybe Canon is getting out because they realize the market is about to disappear.
But yea, that $300 price point would have made it fun to try.

[jackattack]

Shot with a Sony rx100 mk6. I have very little skill with a camera. This device is amazing.

[smmokan]

After a couple weeks digging into this rabbit hole and hoping to find something fun to buy, my impression is that camera based photography only works for people heavily invested (time and money) into photography these days. It feels like there's almost no reason to buy a small camera unless it's complementing a bigger camera collection and you're already numb to the expense and effort. Maybe Canon is getting out because they realize the market is about to disappear.
But yea, that $300 price point would have made it fun to try.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. For me, it's more about making the activity I'm doing more fun - I enjoy bringing my camera on rides, on powder days, etc. And you don't need a super expensive, big setup to take good pictures. And they'll be WAY better than your phone, especially action shots.

For example, when I used to still ski, I loved bringing my camera on powder days; we'd get a few runs of untouched blower, and then fuck around for a while trying to find good pockets to get cool shots. Same with mountain biking, although I don't bring my camera with me as much when I ride with friends since I take so many pictures on our trips... but it's still fun trying to get unique shots and create something different out of a ride. One thing I will note is that size/weight of the camera setup is more important (to me) when I ride, since I'm not a fan of carrying a big camera in my pack when I go for 25 mile rides. Riding an e-bike will make that a different experience, obviously.

You don't have to spend a lot of money to get a solid setup, either. The above-mentioned Canon M-series works great (although I'd check out the M50 instead) with a basic 18-150 or 18-50 lens. Same with Sony, the A6000 body with a similar lens setup will work great. Overall it's probably closer to $400-500 invested, but that's not much of a difference. FwIW, my current setup is a Sony a6600 and the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 lens, it weighs about two pounds.

[WaistDeepGroomers]

I'll def vote for the a6000. I did invest in a better zoom lens than the stock small zoom one (doesn't sit quite as flat in a pack with the lens compressed, but more usable zoom range) and that made a notable difference in image quality. Really amazing little machines. My original a6000 kicked the bucket after 1,000's of pics (the shutter has some endurance limit on how many pics it can take before giving out) and at that point made more sense to get a refurbished version of the updated model. Has 4K video that looks great but which I barely use

[jm2e]

Good info. Will keep trolling around for something compelling to play around with.
Feels like my best bet is to stalk Fred Miranda for a used Sony RX100 V or IV which seem to sell for $5-600.
Just desn't feel like spending more for a bulkier Sony a6100 with kit lens will give me a better experience.
Stuff I'm reading about the Panasonic ZS100/ZS200 sound like there's a lot of inconsistencies.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[singlesline]

Shot with a Sony rx100 mk6. I have very little skill with a camera. This device is amazing.

Man, I don't really need another camera--but every time I see something like this I want to get an RX100.

The iphone doesn't cut it (maybe a pro with the tele lens would help a bit?), but I'm just not carrying my mirrorless gear while skiing or biking even though it is a more compact m4/3 kit.

Being able to shoot raw through a decent zoom lens up to 200mm equivalent...just seems like a winner. Maybe throw in a gorillapod or ultrapod for being able to set up static shots on a post or tree branch.

I think that'd be a better setup than an M200 with compact (lower quality) lenses, especially since I don't think Canon offers something like a pancake zoom that keeps it easily pocketable with decent range like the Olympus 14-42 on a small body (28-84mm equivalent):