Check Out Our Shop
Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Among Greatness All Around
    Posts
    6,661

    Mirrorless camera questions

    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.
    Last edited by RShea; 02-13-2024 at 09:32 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    19,417
    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.
    Is it radix panax notoginseng? - splat
    This is like hanging yourself but the rope breaks. - DTM
    Dude Listen to mtm. He's a marriage counselor at burning man. - subtle plague

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Among Greatness All Around
    Posts
    6,661
    Quote Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    183
    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

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Three-O-Three
    Posts
    15,461
    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.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Treading Water
    Posts
    6,756
    Quote Originally Posted by RShea View Post
    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?
    However many are in a shit ton.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Three-O-Three
    Posts
    15,461
    FWIW, I'd never want a camera (like the M200) without a viewfinder for any kind of action sports, event or general sports photography.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Treading Water
    Posts
    6,756
    Yea, I totally get that.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    However many are in a shit ton.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Orangina
    Posts
    9,261
    FWIW, love my A7iii

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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC05151.jpg 
Views:	35 
Size:	89.5 KB 
ID:	487696Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC06525.jpg 
Views:	37 
Size:	129.2 KB 
ID:	487697

    Sent from my SM-S928U1 using Tapatalk
    "All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring."

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Among Greatness All Around
    Posts
    6,661
    Quote Originally Posted by jm2e View Post
    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.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20240202_143202214.jpg 
Views:	29 
Size:	819.6 KB 
ID:	487712
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20240213_142051760_HDR.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	1.11 MB 
ID:	487715

    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Geopolis
    Posts
    16,269
    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.
    j'ai des grands instants de lucididididididididi

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Treading Water
    Posts
    6,756
    Quote Originally Posted by RShea View Post
    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.
    However many are in a shit ton.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    4,626
    Shot with a Sony rx100 mk6. I have very little skill with a camera. This device is amazing.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	_DSC4201.JPG 
Views:	47 
Size:	350.3 KB 
ID:	487786

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Three-O-Three
    Posts
    15,461
    Quote Originally Posted by jm2e View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    The Wilds of Maine
    Posts
    2,854
    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
    "We're in the eye of a shiticane here Julian, and Ricky's a low shit system!" - Jim Lahey, RIP

    Former Managing Editor @ TGR, forever mag.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Treading Water
    Posts
    6,756
    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
    Last edited by jm2e; 02-26-2024 at 11:31 AM.
    However many are in a shit ton.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Posts
    890
    Quote Originally Posted by jackattack View Post
    Shot with a Sony rx100 mk6. I have very little skill with a camera. This device is amazing.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	_DSC4201.JPG 
Views:	47 
Size:	350.3 KB 
ID:	487786
    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):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	xavsgm1.jpg 
Views:	31 
Size:	300.9 KB 
ID:	488741

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •