7D to EOS M?

[thirdeye]

Ok so I've been kicking this idea around for a while and want to get some outside input on it. I've had a 7D for a few years, I think I bought it shortly after it came out. Over the past year or so I've found that I use it very little, some due to size, some due to time. So I'm thinking about parting ways with it for an upgrade that's friendly for both ease of travel and an upgrade for my wife's (also rarely used) S90.

My current lens collection consists of the following:
Canon 17-55 USM IS
Canon 70-300 USM IS
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8

Also have a Speedlite 430

So my question is, am I crazy for considering this move? I'd imagine I could sell the 7D, body only, and still have money left over after an EOS M kit and EF/EF-S mount adapter if I want to use my better lenses.

What are your thoughts, FWIW, I've probably used 7D a handful of times this year. If I want to take pics of the kids, I use my phone more than anything as it doesn't require any effort, but the results are lackluster sometimes. Would the EOS M be a good fit for me?

 

[TerryMathews]

I did kind of the same thing. Don't. I switched from Nikon to micro 4/3. While its true the cameras are smaller, its not enough to make a difference.

 

[thirdeye]

What were you least happy about with the switch?

I haven't really played with an EOS M yet to get a good idea of size difference, but I assumed in it's kit form it would still be much smaller than the 7D with a 17-55 USM lens as that's my primary lens.

 

[TerryMathews]

What were you least happy about with the switch?

I haven't really played with an EOS M yet to get a good idea of size difference, but I assumed in it's kit form it would still be much smaller than the 7D with a 17-55 USM lens as that's my primary lens.

The camera was still big enough to require a carrying case, and had far fewer capabilities than my big body.

Think about it this way: look at the volume of your camera gear, not just the body. Now do the same with the EOS M. I'd be willing to wager that the difference is around 10%.

Your money would be better spent on a P&S with PDAF like the Sony RX100 and keeping the 7D

 

[CuriousMike]

That's the thing I don't get about 4/3 cameras.

They're smaller, but they're not small enough that you slip them in your pocket like a smartphone or small P&S. You need to carry them with you as you would a DSLR.

I suppose I can't quantify what the handling aspect introduces ( smaller v larger ) and that may be a win.

 

[jaedaliu]

That's the thing I don't get about 4/3 cameras.

They're smaller, but they're not small enough that you slip them in your pocket like a smartphone or small P&S. You need to carry them with you as you would a DSLR.

I suppose I can't quantify what the handling aspect introduces ( smaller v larger ) and that may be a win.

My experience: Nikon D5200 for a week's vacation.

I borrowed one, and found it to be bulky and cumbersome. I was always aware that it was around me neck, and moved carefully. I bought a Panny GX7 from a place that allowed returns, and decided to keep it. For me, the size difference was very noticable. It's lighter and pocketable in my coat.

If you want one that you can slip in your pocket, the Panasonic GM1 should fit in your pants pocket if they aren't skinny jeans.

 

[thirdeye]

Thanks for the input guys. I guess I'll just have to see if I can get my hands on one and see how I like it. Possibly find a place that will allow me to return it if I'm not happy before selling the 7D and regretting it.

 

[AViking]

Pro-tip: If you're going to use a DSLR you need to get a few good carrying bags. I have a backpack and a shoulder bag. I'm going to get another small backpack for trekking since mine is big and better for the city.

Once you have a good way to carry your camera it is not a burden. I have mine with me everywhere. It's ultimately up to you to take it out and snap a photo but you're far more likely to if it's on your back all the time.

I personally would try that first. It's not that much smaller (1 lb difference) and spending $500-$700 on a RX100 or something similar isn't my cup of tea since I like easy access to settings on my camera. I think it's a good compliment though. You really need to get your hands on one and see what you think. Shoot in low light and mess with all the relevant settings like ISO, White Balance, exposure compensation, bracketing, and so on. Make sure you're comfortable with it as a primary camera.

Ultimately you're going to have to sacrifice something. Getting something like a fastpack though would be my first step.

 

[Throckmorton]

There are much better compact cameras... Like the Sony NEX ones. You get an APS-C sensor and some good lens options, and you can get an adapter

 

[thirdeye]

To be honest, I have backpacks, straps, slings, etc and I still don't use it. It's just not convenient to carry and/or remember when I already have two kids to contend with as well. Hell, my daughter's birthday was last month and I forgot to pack the camera up and take it to her party because I had so much other stuff to remember.

Honestly, I know the EOS M is not the best option, I just figured it would still allow me to utilize my current lens collection.

 

[TerryMathews]

To be honest, I have backpacks, straps, slings, etc and I still don't use it. It's just not convenient to carry and/or remember when I already have two kids to contend with as well. Hell, my daughter's birthday was last month and I forgot to pack the camera up and take it to her party because I had so much other stuff to remember.

Honestly, I know the EOS M is not the best option, I just figured it would still allow me to utilize my current lens collection.

The point I was trying to make was the smaller body doesn't fix the "stuff" issue.

You need a good super zoom compact to address your complaint.

 

[thirdeye]

The point I was trying to make was the smaller body doesn't fix the "stuff" issue.

You need a good super zoom compact to address your complaint.

I guess I don't mind the "stuff" sometimes, it just holds me back for quick uses. I like having the option, even if I don't use it much, but I do see what you're saying. I'm wondering if simply upgrading the wife's S90 would be the better solution....decisions decisions.

 

[AViking]

How about phone on the go and the best point and shoot until the kids get older?

 

[NAC]

This is a drastic change.

The 7D is a pretty big and heavy DSLR, it is also one of the fastest DSLRs. It also has very extensive controls.

The EOS M is pretty small, and also widely considered to be among the slowest cameras. It has minimal controls. But with the large lenses you have, it wouldn't really be that small. Only with the 22mm does it become a pretty small camera.


First question is – will you shoot any sports or action? If so, I think your best bet is to get a Rebel or maybe the SL1. You'll get pretty good phase focus and speed. OR, keep your 7D and perhaps get a EOS M.

If not, then I think your best bet is to sell everything and go with micro 4/3 or maybe Fuji. Compared to the 7D, the size and weight difference of the bodies is substantial, although the lenses not so much. The speed for non-moving targets will be similar. And the amount of control will be close – better than an entry level DSLR. Fuji and micro 4/3 are pretty different philosophies in terms of controls – you can choose which one you prefer. You have lots of size choices down to the GM1, and won't lose much if anything in picture quality.

 

[zCypher]

In my opinion you won't benefit from downgrading from a larger bulky setup to a smaller and still bulky setup. It sounds like you want a good point and shoot. That would be something like the RX100, I've only read great things about it on this forum and in reviews, and I have a friend who has one and is very very pleased with it. The size and specs seem to be pretty kickass. You can take sweet pics with it, and it will fit in a normal pocket - don't need a bag full of stuff. Which I think is your pain point here.

I have the D5200 with kit lens, I haven't started getting lots of gear for it yet, but I have definitely felt times where I either forgot to bring it, or didn't plan to and missed out on some potentially great pics. There were also other times where I knew I might want to take better than cell phone pics, but also knew that I would definitely not want the whole kit. For these reasons I am thinking of picking up something like the RX100 to fill that gap. I definitely won't give up the D5200 any time soon, and probably will get more stuff for it for vacations and the rest of the time when I really do want to take the camera.

I think I'd be pretty unhappy if I downgraded to a "lesser" DSLR setup to save just a bit of weight and space, but still be obligated to bring a whole pack of crap with me. My recommendation is RX100 or similar to fill those needs, and keep your sweet 7D setup for those times you still really want it. You'll probably be very happy you did!

 

[NAC]

I guess it depends on if you want to use the controls on the camera. I'd be disappointed to go from a DSLR with a dozen+ buttons and two dials and excellent ergonomics to a point and shoot with little of the same control. It makes sense if you want a really small camera, and that is the only priority. So, for example the S90 you have. But as an only camera - I'd be disappointed.

Which calls to question - you say you rarely use the 7D because of the size. Why do you rarely use the S90?

 

[thirdeye]

Well I'm pretty sure upgrading the S90 with another good point and shoot is the best way to go. I don't use the S90 because it's my wife's camera so I very rarely know where it is. It's also fairly old, battery life is not so great anymore, and honestly I think my phone is almost on par quality-wise with it so I don't really have a big incentive to use it over my phone.

That RX100 certainly looks sweet.

 

[TerryMathews]

The RX100 has PDAF which is going to make it focus like you're used to on a DSLR. Much better for fast shots.

 

[foghorn67]

I find the EOS M very capable. The only thing I don't like about it is battery life and the Servo mode. But the advantage is the EOS M goes almost everywhere with me.
I own both the M and the 7.

 

[thirdeye]

How you rank the EOS M as a point and shoot to compliment the 7D? At this point I realize that getting rid of the 7D seems to be the wrong way to go so it's a matter of finding a point and shoot for everyday things. I still like the idea of the EOS M though for the flexibility.

 

[iGas]

Get the EOS M and keep all your existing gears. And, see if the EOS M serve you well enough before you get rid of the DSLR.

I have the 5D mkII and S95, and I use the S95 just as often as the DSLR.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

FWIW you can still get the Nikon V1 with the 10-30 ( 27mm-81mm equivalent) kit lens for $294 @ Adorama. Versus the RX100 you will have better AF speed and better subject tracking due to the hybrid PDAF / CDAF - plus a really good viewfinder.

 

[Syborg1211]

Just something to keep in mind - the RX100 is NOT a pocketable camera for me. I own it and the thickness at the lens is too thick to get into my jeans pocket comfortably. I am 6'5" so my pants are not small by any means. Once it's not pocketable, the size advantage is pretty moot to me. I have a Fuji X100S now and am much more happy with it. It has a proper viewfinder and it's a great balance between size and performance. You still have to carry it around, or attach it to your belt like I do, but even my wife enjoys the camera and its ergonomics over the rx100.

 

[elitejp]

Im not sure any camera is truly pocketable such as putting it in your jeans pocket. But carrying it around in your jacket pocket there are quite a few options. I havent looked into too many but people rave about the new fuji cameras along with sonys nex and you could also consider sigmas merril lineup which all seem to be better then the eos m lineup. Canon would be the last on my list. just about every camera company has surpassed canon, with the exception of canon having cheaper telephoto primes/zooms and their excelent tilt shift lenses. All other lenses can be had from third parties or natively. My pick is either the sony a7 or a7r paired with the 55mm. Extremely small and its gonna produce pics that no canon can. Dont get me wrong i wish canon was making all the improvements and leading the industry because then I could just upgrade my body rather than changing systems. As it stands im in a holding pattern but my 50d stays home more than I wish due to its size. So for me a mirrorless a7r that I can take everywhere without getting in the way seems ideal.

 

[blastingcap]

Ok so I've been kicking this idea around for a while and want to get some outside input on it. I've had a 7D for a few years, I think I bought it shortly after it came out. Over the past year or so I've found that I use it very little, some due to size, some due to time. So I'm thinking about parting ways with it for an upgrade that's friendly for both ease of travel and an upgrade for my wife's (also rarely used) S90.

My current lens collection consists of the following:
Canon 17-55 USM IS
Canon 70-300 USM IS
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8

Also have a Speedlite 430

So my question is, am I crazy for considering this move? I'd imagine I could sell the 7D, body only, and still have money left over after an EOS M kit and EF/EF-S mount adapter if I want to use my better lenses.

What are your thoughts, FWIW, I've probably used 7D a handful of times this year. If I want to take pics of the kids, I use my phone more than anything as it doesn't require any effort, but the results are lackluster sometimes. Would the EOS M be a good fit for me?

If you barely use it, why would you downgrade to something that is basically the same thing but slower? You shave a little weight and size off and that's about it.

Much of the bulk and inconvenience of high-end cameras is due to lenses--even if you remove some of the bulk of the body, most themselves take up a lot of space and weight and are not suitable for everyday carry. If you think you can live with 28-100mm (full frame equivalent) zoom range and can make do with an aftermarket optical slave flash or onboard flash, try a Sony RX100M2. In fact you can handle it in-store at some places. It won't allow lens swaps or very narrow DoF, and the lens is fast only before you convert to full-frame equivalent so in reality it's only about as good as a crop-body DSLR with lens kit, but you can carry it with you everywhere where you'd normally take a smartphone photo instead. The RX100 series also has photo-stacking ability where you take ~6 shots in a row and it blends them together for better low light performance of non-moving objects, sort of a bonus on top of regular optical stabilization.

I went from DSLR to Micro Four Thirds to the present half-and-half DSLR and RX100M2. (I had the RX100 before that, but I wanted a hotshoe.) MFT was good but the size difference isn't big enough to justify the price premium for many people, though its makes a LOT of sense for some people, like backpackers who want to pack ultrawide angle lenses up mountains or whatnot.

Btw, someone up there said the RX100 has PDAF. It does not. It has contrast detect autofocus, which is slower albeit more accurate, plus it can do things like face track better than most cameras I've seen. The Nikon 1 series does have PDAF but it is way bulkier once you factor in lens size/weight.

Sony NEX, Samsung NX suffer from same problem as EOS M and Nikon 1 and MFT: the lenses protrude and take up space/weight. None of them are anywhere near as portable as something like a RX100.

I would not buy a Canon S series for more than $200. You can get a used RX100 for what, $400 or less, and it absolutely creams the Canons in almost every way.

Worthy alternatives to the RX100 may include stuff like Panasonic's LX7 and other such cameras.

Let me end by saying that I absolutely hate Sony but bought the RX100, then upgraded to the RX100M2 anyway. That kinda says it all.