I'm having a hard time deciding between the Canon M5 and

File: 1500447359504.jpg (294KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1024x768px

I wanted to add that while I've looked at the Sony FF, they don't really interest me.

>I have very few lenses that work with FF
>crop mode means loss of fidelity (lower MP, right?)
>expensive FF lenses don't align with my budget either now or down the line

I've seen used a7 and a7ii for comparable prices but the above factors are making me steer clear.

>>3140355
Crop is a false economy, crop lenses will soon be dead. At the current rate the aps-c market will account for less than 20% of camera sales within 5 years as people would rather use full frame or their phone. Imagine what happens to your crop lens prices when that happens.
Sell up now, sell everything that is crop, you will still get back 70-80% of your original cost.

Get a 2nd hand a7ii, it's cheaper than the a6500 and shits all over it if video isn't important.

>>3140392
You're constantly memeing this in every thread on /p/.

>>3140352

There is a $250 adapter for a6500 that works damn well. Some say better than the metabones.

a6500 also has three dials. One is the circular dpad dial on the back face.

a6500 is hands down the better camera.

But the m5/22mm combo would be damn tempting.

It might be worth waiting a few months. a7iii will get launched soon, and while it will be more expensive than the a6500 most likely, it will be a much better camera.

>>3140395
Memeing what?
Cipa reports?
You're welcome to read them for yourself.

>>3140401

If you are referring to the MC-11 (what I'm looking at), it's $350 in Canada.

In the case of dials, I didn't factor in rear dial: in that case, the M5 has four instead of three, still one upping the a6500.

I'm really not in the market for FF for reasons I mentioned. My maximum budget is $2000 or so ($1600USD) and I greatly prefer to buy new. I really don't think I can make FF work, unfortunately.

From reviews I've watched, the M5 and a6500 are pretty comparable with sharpness with the a6500 having a slight edge if I'm to believe Mr. Northrup. But that slight edge I personally don't feel is worth $700.

What could be worth it is the AF and IBIS, though. Comparing the two: those are the only two features I really think would convince me to go the a6500 vs M5.

Is the IBIS with the a6500 even for stills? I've been using CameraDecision to compare a lot of cameras just to ween out the "losers" and then following up with prospects by watching/reading reviews. The site is deceptive, though, stating the M5 has IBIS but doesn't clarify it's for video only.

If the M5 had fulltime IBIS, it would be my purchase hands-down, but since it isn't and the a6500 might be, I dunno...

>>3140404
>never opened an art book
>reads all Cipa reports
the state of /p/

>not getting mft

wasted opportunity

>>3140512

That is quite pricey for the MC-11. I picked up mine from b&h for $150 the other day. Haven't found a lens it doesn't work yet, but only tested a handful of primes.

a6500 has the fastest af of any mirrorless I believe. Well, outside of the a9 now I guess. IBIS also works for stills and even adapted lenses.

Honestly the a6500 is a better camera. $700 is kinda pushing it a bit though. If you could find one for only $400 more I'd say grab it.

>>3140352
>still using a T3i
>wanted to treat myself to a MILC
Anon, it's not an upgrade to lose 70% of your battery life, a real viewfinder, a real AF system and all of your dignity.
5d2's are like $800 these days, get one and make your family proud.