Hi Everyone, I have a 100D since 2013, only a few months since it came out. For you reference, my only other owned camera before that was a 2nd hand 350D.
I do casual photography, the typical stuff: travel, kids, family, etc... (you can see my flickr stream to understand the type of photos I usually do)
I value a lot the lightness of the 100D and were not planning to upgrade, as I'm very pleased with the performance.
If there is something that I miss, it's mainly low ISO performance at first,and then some small things , like the non-movable screen, short buffer when shotting burst.
I have a decent set of lens which I'm very satisfied, so I do not plan to change brand, so when I saw the announcement of the 200D, I felt interested to see which were the improvements of my camera after 4 years in the market.
Pros of the upgrade:
· Better ISO (have been impressed with the samples)
· Movable screen
I don't care
· Burst rate improved from 4FPS to 5FPS
· More megapixels
· AF not improved (only 9 points)
· Buffer not improved? (from what I read)
Honestly, not sure to upgrade, as there balance is a lot in-between... some improvements but deceived at some things.
Obviously I don't want to go to larger cameras, as I value a lot the portability that I currently have.