Mirrorless or lenses for my 5DIII

I am trying to decide on whether to get a mirrorless (Fuji X-t2 or Canon M-5) or to invest in a wide angle lens for my 5DIII. My family just bought an RV, so we will be going camping a lot, and I would like something to be able to get some nature and landscape shots. Pure quality wise, my 5DIII would probably be best, but I figure the 2 mirrorless choices will be very close. A mirrorless would definitely be smaller, so that would help when I am hiking trails. I would probably be more inclined to take a mirrorless with a small prime with me, when going on other family outings.

I would like to get everyone's thoughts. While I am not expecting prize winning results, I would like high enough quality that I could possible get some nice prints (maybe up to 24" wide). Do you think the mirrorless options could do this? While the M-5 is supposed to be best focusing Canon Mirrorless so far, that really isn't that important to me. (I will always have my 5DIII or 7DII for chasing kids and other action shots) The M-5 would save me some money over the Fuji, and I could use my existing EF lenses. However, there is something to be said about the images straight out of the Fuji.

If I go with the mirrorless option, I will be getting the body, an ultra wide zoom like the 10-22, and a fast 35mm equiv. prime.

Any opinions appreciated.

Thanks

The M5 canon body still lacks native lenses. This is where I find my relatively light 80D body with "heavy" lenses is a slight comprise in weight. The 80D is marginally larger than a Panasonic Gh4!!! However the M43 lenses is lighter. Why am i talking about the 80D???? DPAF video documentation of the family captures the moments with no focus issues as you run and gun.

You may find owning a smaller camera you will document more family outings due to a mirrorless bodies light weight.

Fuji X-T2 will be able to have fast AF to document your family with no issues. The 16mpx Fuji generation is still slower which I still find it too slow at time to document children's events. Family snapshots the xt1, xt10, xe2 will provide sufficient AF speed to do the job....X-T2 is much better!!!

10-24 f/4 is stellar glass but i sure wish it was f/2.8

I'd suggest spending more and buy the 18-55 kit lens. That lens is very good for general use. Also buy a bunch of spare batteries.

The 23 f/1.4 is a beautiful lens (35mm equiv) or go with a lighter new version that is 23 f/2.

Look at fuji's lens selection to see if it meets your focal length needs.

Most importantly have fun!!

Would the 80D be that much smaller than my 5DIII? If so, I might consider that, because I can still put a small prime on it for when I want to travel light. Also, it is the same sensor as the M-5 coming out, so in theory they should have the same IQ, and I could use the smaller EF-M lenses.

You have a 7D2? Why in the world would you want a 80D?

Go for the WA lens. IMHO of course.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18185696
You have a 7D2? Why in the world would you want a 80D?

The only reason I would even consider the 80D is if it were quite a bit smaller than the 5D or 7D. That is why I am considering Mirrorless, because the size would be smaller.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18185696
You have a 7D2? Why in the world would you want a 80D?

Go for the WA lens. IMHO of course.

I kinda agree with you but the swivel screen, responsive touch screen can pull focus while taking video. The target/face detection also works extremely well. It's not a fps beast but it does very well in tracking for kids sports. IQ is suppose to be a step above the 7dmk2 since the 80D uses the newest crop sensor from Canon. The dynamic range does feel more like pushing/pulling a full frame RAW file in post.

Tim, I'd even suggest completing your dslr kit with a 16-35 f/2.8mk2 (more affordable than mk3 at this moment). This will fill you UWA FF needs and can also act as a nice mid telezoom for your 7dmk2.

If you do go Fuji I find the crop sensor to produce lush files closer to FF richness. The 80D has pleasantly surprised me in how similar it produces fuji rendition but I still prefer fuji files over canon crop sensor. The 55-200 f/3.5-4.8 affordable zoom is probably on par if not nicer than a 70-200 f/4is w/ 7dmk2. The beauty of the fuji system is the light weight. Just be warned the fuji system still does not have HSS/TTL flash units so this can be crappy if you want fill flash outdoors at wide apertures. The new fuji flash is coming but it's not cheap either.

If you shoot available light the fuji system produces pleasant images. You also have a wide variety of fast primes. I love the 24mm FL so I purchased the 16mm f/1.4 fuji prime and it's a fantastic piece of glass!!! The UWA 10-24 is slow at f/4 but it does produce great IQ for outdoor use or well lit indoor photos.

On the topic of lens size and weight...both the Fuji XT-2 and the Canon M5 are effectively using APS-C sized sensors.
Canon M5 is 22.3 x 14.9 mmm and Fuji XT-2 is 23.6 mm x 15.6 mm ...virtually same size, and the lens FL are both 1.6X shorter than lens intended for FF coverage. No inherent advantage for Fuji XT-2 over Canon M5, nor vice versa.

As for 'native' lens size vs. 'for FF size'...if we assume 100mm for Fuji or Canon M5 vs. 160mm for Canon 5DIV, the shorter FL of the APS-C cameras allows inherently shorter lenses for them. But, let us consider 'native' vs. 'for FF' lens design...100mm EF lens vsl 100mm M lens...the rear node has to be about 100mm for both lenses, so if the M5 body is 10mm thinner (for discussion purposes, let us assume this) the 100mm EF barrel has to project back from the rear node by 10mm less than the 100mm M lens...but in both cases, the front element of the lens is the same distance for both (all else being equal).

We know from Olympus OM history, that lenses CAN be designed to be shorter and lighter, if there is the motivation to achieve that as design goals. In the case of Olympus OM, they could design a FF lens to be shorter than Canon/Nikon/everyone else in the 1980's, for the same FL.
So the real question is if Canon feels sufficient market opportunity for them to undertake an expensive redesign of M-appropriate FL lenses designed for mounting only on their mirrorless body. As we have seen in the case of the Sony FF mirrorless, the camera+lens may or MAY NOT be any smaller than the comparable Canon FF dSLR combination!

The lens selection is much more mature in the fuji world vs EF-M canon lenses. If your a prime shooter you may find the Fuji world to be handy both in handling and versatility in lens selection. As I'm more interested in native lenses I do like the fuji lens selection.

I truly wish Canon would produce a 16mm fast prime lens for their crop sensor. That would be a sweet spot for me. Perhaps this was why I was drawn to the fuji system.

Get an X-T1 used and the 10-24. I'm shooting that along with 5DIII and multiple L lenses. The Fuji is flat out wonderful, both image quality and body/lens quality. I wouldn't consider Canon mirrorless, their heart ain't into it.

I'm suggesting cry and empty the wallet for an X-T2 and 18-55 kit lens. You will NOT complain about AF speed and you'll have better resolution with 24mpx. 16mpx body AF is not fast enough for me to do my events photography without missing some shots...your results may vary on subject matter.

Tim if you try to sell your 18-55 kit lens you'd sell in almost instantly. I think you do need a fast prime like 23 f/1.4 at least to cover the semi wide end for fast shutter speeds.

AlanU wrote in post #18186292
I'm suggesting cry and empty the wallet for an X-T2 and 18-55 kit lens.

This is way I am leaning. If I go this way I was going to buy the body, 10-24, and either the 23 or 35. So, you think it would be worth it to go ahead and spend another $300 and get the kit lens? I heard that this isn't your typical "kit" lens. Is that correct?

Correct the Fuji "kit" 18-55 lens is far from what most think of when they think of a kit lens. It is a variable aperture lens f2.8-f4 but it is sharp and AF is quick.

If you think you'd like having the 18-55 zoom along with the 10-24mm then I'd say get it. If not the 10-24 and 35 will be a nice littl combo.

Personally I have the 18-55 for when I don't want to carry several fast prime. Great little lens

tim1970 wrote in post #18186436
This is way I am leaning. If I go this way I was going to buy the body, 10-24, and either the 23 or 35. So, you think it would be worth it to go ahead and spend another $300 and get the kit lens? I heard that this isn't your typical "kit" lens. Is that correct?

Please pay the extra. I would say it would have better IQ than my Canon 80D with Canon 17-55IS. However we know the 17-55IS is constant aperture.

The 18-55 should not be considered a kit lens. If you do research there are real users saying there's little difference to the 16-55 f/2.8 $$$$$.

I Love the IQ of my 10-24mm. The image quality is absolutely incredible. I'm not a 50mm FL fan so I cannot comment on the 35 f/1.4 however many users seem to have more preference to the newer 35 f/2 version.

For giggles you may find the 55-200 incredibly handy!! Tack sharp!!

Yes, whatever you do--don't consider Sony!

LOL.

gremlin75 wrote in post #18186458
Correct the Fuji "kit" 18-55 lens is far from what most think of when they think of a kit lens. It is a variable aperture lens f2.8-f4 but it is sharp and AF is quick.

If you think you'd like having the 18-55 zoom along with the 10-24mm then I'd say get it. If not the 10-24 and 35 will be a nice littl combo.

Personally I have the 18-55 for when I don't want to carry several fast prime. Great little lens

I know a couple of Fuji shooters that swear by the 18-55. I opted against it because I wanted the 16-55 2.8.