Canon EOS M vs 1000D

hashcake

hashcake

Gone to pot!
Messages
5,948
Name
Darran, Daz or ****
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been out of the photography game for a few years, I previously owned a 50D, 10-22, 24-105L IS and a 100-400L IS (plus various other bodies and lenses I have bought and sold).
I've recently bought a Canon 1000D and a 18-55 F4 MKII from a friend that I am slowly getting re-acquainted with.
The EOS M looks interesting but the idea of not having a viewfinder puts me but the ability to being able to change lenses has gained my interest.
As I want to eventually get back into doing landscape and wildlife photography, my heart says stick with the cheap DSLR then upgrade the body and lenses when funds allow.
However, having seen some very good landscape photos taken with the EOS M, plus the fact that is newer tech than the 1000D.
I haven't read the specs on the EOS M so I have no idea about ISO range and if it supports things like aperture and shutter priority and the option to shoot in RAW and I know I would miss these features.
From what I have read on the forum so far, it leaves me to believe that most people use the M series as a secondary set up or as a compact system to have handy.
Obviously I know that there is no way it can perform as well as a good DSLR body with L lenses and as I said above, the lack of viewfinder is a major concern for me.
 
I agree with your concerns regarding the lack of a viewfinder. I bought my M in August last year and for a few months used it exclusively, leaving my 7D untouched. However, my wife bought me a Sigma 105mm macro for Christmas. So, decided to try the new lens on both cameras and have to say that I now use the 7D far more than the M and not only with the macro lens. I didn't realise how much I missed the viewfinder on the 7D. I shall still use my M when out and about, or when on holiday, but the 7D will take some beating for my type of usage.

Hope this helps in some way.:)
 
I think the EOS-M is a nice option for landscapes, especially when paired with the 11-22mm EF-M. You obviously gain size/weight advantage when clambering up and down mountains and although I understand it probably lacks the dynamic range available in competitor models, it's current price range makes it a decent choice for those on a budget.

It contains pretty much all the features of the larger bodies with regard to shooting RAW, Aperture , shutter contol etc. You can go full manual and the menu system will be easily identifiable from Canon's dSLR range. The key thing it lacks is a view finder, and the lack of many quick access dials (although there are still some). It's often been described as a 650D is a smaller body and I would think it comparable to the XXXD range in terms of features.

For wildlife it falls down, lacking anything decent in the way of autofocus and frame rate. The longest M mount offering from Canon is 200mm at F6.3 and although there are some third party offerings, they aren't anything suited to serious wildlife photography. Of course you can use an adaptor and plug any of the EF zooms in, but then you lose any significant size/weight advantage and you compromise other functionality you take for granted within a dSLR. It begs the question "why bother?", and I think, Canon understand this. The M system isn't really angled towards Sports/Wildlife style shooting.

That said, if you read the very recent posts in the EOS-M thread there is a lot of speculation about the soon to be announced EOS-M3 (this Friday apparently). It looks like Canon have addressed a lot of complaints with the earlier models with a new sensor expected and improved AF hoped for. It might go some way towards bridging the gap between mirrorless and larger bodies and potentially could out perform the 1000D. I don't think it will challenge the more expensive models yet and that is no doubt a good thing as the other big factor of course is cost. There doesn't seem to be any consensus around what that is likely to be at this stage.
 
TimmyG said:
For wildlife it falls down, lacking anything decent in the way of autofocus and frame rate.
Click to expand...

I should have mentioned that I know what lenses are available and knew the M wouldn't be suitable for wildlife, my excuse is that I did post the topicin the early hours :D
From what I have read the speculation of the M3 is that it will be quite expensive and I think I will stick with the DSLSR route.
 
For me the M is a "grab it as I'm walking out the door" camera, I have it permanently in a small bag along with the 11-22mm, 18-55mm, 22mm and flash (plus a spare battery and card). The whole thing is less bulky than my 7D and 17-55mm 2.8. It's a cracking little camera and I'm more than happy with it (specially at the current price) but it will never replace my 7D and if push came to shove it would be the DSLR that I kept
 
hashcake said:
I should have mentioned that I know what lenses are available and knew the M wouldn't be suitable for wildlife, my excuse is that I did post the topicin the early hours :D
From what I have read the speculation of the M3 is that it will be quite expensive and I think I will stick with the DSLSR route.
Click to expand...

Cameras are always released at a high price-point that gets reduced significantly over time. The original EOS-M price was over £700 and look at it now...! The RRP of the M3 is likely to be similar to the M on release, but I'd fully expect it to be a couple of hundred pounds less in a year's time. If the reviews pan it like they did with the original M, it may even be cheaper than that ;)
 
magicolor1 said:
Cameras are always released at a high price-point that gets reduced significantly over time. The original EOS-M price was over £700 and look at it now...! The RRP of the M3 is likely to be similar to the M on release, but I'd fully expect it to be a couple of hundred pounds less in a year's time. If the reviews pan it like they did with the original M, it may even be cheaper than that ;)
Click to expand...
700 quid!
There is no way I would have paid that for the EOS-M.
Just shows how out of touch I had been :)
 
Mike.P said:
For me the M is a "grab it as I'm walking out the door" camera, I have it permanently in a small bag along with the 11-22mm, 18-55mm, 22mm and flash (plus a spare battery and card). The whole thing is less bulky than my 7D and 17-55mm 2.8. It's a cracking little camera and I'm more than happy with it (specially at the current price) but it will never replace my 7D and if push came to shove it would be the DSLR that I kept
Click to expand...

Got the same setup as Mike, primarily bought it as a replacement for my P&S, the camera take some great shots, ok, the autofocus ain't lightning quick, but that's why I've got the 1D and 70D. The EOS M fit perfectly into my kit and took advantage of Argos £200 camera kit and eBay to buy the EF adapter and 22mm lens, the 11-22mm also a great lens.
 
magicolor1 said:
Cameras are always released at a high price-point that gets reduced significantly over time. The original EOS-M price was over £700 and look at it now...! The RRP of the M3 is likely to be similar to the M on release, but I'd fully expect it to be a couple of hundred pounds less in a year's time. If the reviews pan it like they did with the original M, it may even be cheaper than that ;)
Click to expand...

Wex have the M3 kit listed at £599 or £499 p/ex gor an M kit

So less than original M retail and a 24.2 Meg sensor.

I will pronanly order later but no p/ex.

Am hoping that the body only option will appear AND better still a lit with the 11-22 UWA at a reduced price.

EVF not mentioned yet....

Edit

EVF is an optional extra

Suggest going to EOS M thread....


Steve
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top