# EOS M or T3i which one?



## mvrbnsn (Aug 2, 2013)

I have an S 95 which I carry everywhere. With manual settings I've been able to get great shots even at night. 
I'm an Art Director and artist, love taking photos but it is just hobby for me.

I'd like to add a DSLR for increased capability; landscapes--day and night, portraits (just family). For budget I was thinking of either a refurb T3i or the EOS M simply because of it's small size, less weight and current price.

What are your thoughts as to overall image quality between the two cameras? Do you think the EOS M kit 18-55 is better than the T3i kit for example? Or any other discriminators in favor of one or the other.

Thanks in advance for the advice.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Aug 2, 2013)

I do not have either EOS M or T3i (I use 40D/50D). So cannot tell you anything about the image quality. But I have another point. I have been reading that Canon is not even introducing a particular lens suitable for the EOS M in the US market. So I wonder how much canonusa is behind this camera system (EOS M). In any case it is a new system, and so there may be first adopter's disadvantages associated with it for the next one or two years.


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Aug 2, 2013)

You should think about what you are using it for. The M would be an amazing camera to bring with you on hikes with a lightweight tripod. If you have time to think and compose and manually focus on your shots, then I would think the M would be a better camera as it would allow you to use more lenses and is much smaller. If you are more of an on the move kind of shooter, then the T3i would be better suited with its faster autofocusing and viewfinder. For me, if I was to get a backup for my 5D MKii, I would get an EOS M because I like to take my time shooting and I am normally on a tripod. The great number of lenses that can be adapted would open a whole new world. Again this is just me. Also I would consider maybe going for something other then the two Canon cameras, the micro 4/3 system has some great cameras that are very affordable and I believe have fast af.


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 2, 2013)

The Eos-M is a great little camera. The IQ and ability to use interchangeable lenses are a step up from what you are using now. But, it is not in the same category as a DSLR. If you want the ability to take shts quickly, would like to use a viewfinder, want faster focus and the ability to really do manual focus, and want a few more options, go with the T3i. For me, my M is great but is not a substitute for my DSLR.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Aug 2, 2013)

I think it depends. If you're doing mainly video, I like having the AF while recording in the EOS M. If you need it more for pictures (meaning you need the camera to respond a little more quickly), I'd go with the t3i.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Aug 2, 2013)

Another option could be "wait and see".

IF it's true that the 70D will have a much faster live-view focussing speed, 
AND that the EOS M2 will be announced shortly (autumn/fall 2013?), 
AND that the EOS M2 will inherit the Live-view AF from the 70D, 
THEN the Mirrorless could become to be a real alternative to a DSLR. 

In case you can't wait, AFAIK the focussing speed of the (current) EOS M should be better than your S95's one, but the leap shouldn't be dramatic as if you had switched to any DSLR.


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 2, 2013)

The main advantage for having a DSLR these days is for fast focus on quick moving subjects. IQ I'm guessing is going to be similar since they share a similar sensor.


----------



## michi (Aug 2, 2013)

I had a S95, now have a S100. Just bought the EOS M with the kit lens on sale. I also have two DSLR's. First of all, the EOS M would be a huge step up in quality from the S95. You can do a lot of stuff with those little S series cameras, but the EOS M is a huge step up in image quality and ISO noise. With the S95 you really can't go above 200. With the EOS M 1600 is no problem. If you can still get one on sale for $349, that would be a great deal, especially seeing that the S series costs about that much usually.

As to whether you should get a T3i is kind of up to you. You are now moving into something much bigger and heavier. Not sure image quality would be any better though compare to the EOS M. It's a lot more ergonomic to hold and operate ine of those digital rebels though. Also the T3i has a built in flash which the EOS M does not.

I would say that if you are more or less happy with the S95 and are not looking to get big into DSLR's soon, the EOS M at $349 with the kit lens is a amazing deal. I think the kit lens is just great, better than the built in S95 lens for sure.

Some suggested to wait, yeah, you can always wait, there will always be something better. Bang for the buck, you can't beat the EOS M with the kit lens for $349. The new EOS M will surely cost a lot more.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 2, 2013)

I have both a T3i and an M.

Which is better for you, depends on you, I use both for different purposes and think of them as complimentary rather than as competing products.

The T3i wins out for video use, more down to handling and operation. The vari angle screen is just so handy. The range of lenses is also really useful.
It's not compact. 

The M is a great snapshot camera. I don't use the converter or my EF / EF-s lenses anywhere near as much as I anticipated. It's also a bargain just now. The upgraded AF works well, certainly miles better than on my powershot sx230 (no experience of the s95) especially if you use the trash button to limit the AF area.

I use the 22mm pancake lens only. Keeps the body compact, when you start adding zooms I think it defeats the point of a csc. The IQ of the M is a stop better for stills and video. If you shoot in low light without flash, this is worth bearing in mind. 

Is the 22mm lens enough for you? You can always crop in (loads of usable resolution) but will it be wide enough for you?

The s95 has a useful wee zoom that covers pretty much the same range as an 18-55 lens (in 35mm terms) give or take. So you really have to ask, whats more important... compact size or flexibility.

Try using your s95 set at 35mm equivalent (as this matches the field of view of the 22mm lens on the M) for a day, and see if you could cope.

Both are great cameras, I really enjoy using both, but for different reasons. You won't be disapointed with the results from either, the main thing is to stay focused on form factor and why you want to upgrade. Do this and your decision shall be made for you.


----------



## DRR (Aug 2, 2013)

I would get the T3i. I have an EOS M and I love it, however I use it to supplement my kit, not replace it. If I had only one camera, I wouldn't choose an EOS M, a point and shoot, or even the convenience of a phone camera. If I only had one camera it would be a DSLR every time.

At the end of the day if it's worth taking a good picture it's worth taking a DSLR. I love the convenience a phone camera offers, I love the versatility of the EOS M, but neither replaces a DSLR to me.


----------



## mvrbnsn (Aug 2, 2013)

Thanks to all who weighed in on my question. I really appreciate it! I originally started reading Canon Rumors just to see if there were any upcoming large sensor compacts from Canon. 

Since then I have gotten interested in reading some of the Forum discussions and have learned a lot from them, thanks again!


----------



## Rams_eos (Aug 2, 2013)

I have a T3i and I am happy with it. I tried an M and found the AF really much slower.
I have not performed side by side comparison on image quality but I expect it to be fairly close.
Where I see a difference is in ergonomic. You will get more shot and a better % of good ones with T3i (optical viewfinder does help).
I am not sure there is a big difference in carrying both. T3i is fairly light. Try them before deciding. Both can't fit in a pocket.
What I am missing in T3i is the Top LCD panel. But to get that, you need to spend more and it seems you don’t want to.


----------



## DRR (Aug 2, 2013)

Another drawback of the EOS M is that I've found it near impossible to properly compose a shot in full sunlight. You just can't see the screen when it's too bright outside. Just have to fall back on street photography instincts and make good guesses.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 2, 2013)

Lots of good advice in this thread. I recently purchased an M and have owned a T2i in the past (similar to T3i with a fixed LCD). I currently 6D and 7D DSLR's and a S100.

For me the EOS-M is a great complimentary camera to my DSLR's, but I would not want it as an only camera. The M is very compact and easy to throw in your pocket or small Dashport 20 carrying case. I use it in place of my S100 now.

However, there are lots of times when I prefer the fast FPS, optical viewfinder, and quick AF of a DSLR. The M is slow between shots and even with the new firmware relatively slow to focus. So, I find I am missing lots of shots with it when shooting the kids and other moving targets. For Landscapes and slow moving targets the M is great. I recently took it to a wedding reception and it performed great in low light and for posed and un posed shots of people. 

The IQ of the M should be pretty similar to the T3i in my experience. So, I think the trade offs are size vs. speed and versatility.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 2, 2013)

In the end, it depends on what you're chasing (looking for).

If the priority is:

Image quality: either one will suffice, both will be about the same
Speed and Performance: T3i is better
Size and convenience: M is better

Like most posters on this thread, I use the M as a secondary camera to my DSLR, which serves as my primary camera for important events. I wasn't so crazy about the M as an only camera, but with the recent price cuts I have to say that it's actually a great value now. For the price, it's really the best Canon camera you can get. Even the entry-level DSLR costs significantly more and while it offers far superior ergonomics and speed, the image quality is in the same class...


----------



## enraginangel (Aug 2, 2013)

Canon has already has an answer to your dilemma and it isn't the Canon EOS M or the Canon T3i. It is....:drumroll:...

The Canon SL1: The size is between the T3i and M and the performance is closer to a T3i than it is to an M. Plus you don't need an adapter to use all of Canon's lenses.

And to help make your decision, it is on sale right now: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-Rebel-SL1-18-0-MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Black-Kit-w-18-55mm-Lens/360710888345?customid=SZ9LaPuSEeKMhELSzz4jvwugr6_2E.e3_0_0_0&pub=5574652453&afepn=5337259887&campid=5337259887&afepn=5337259887


----------



## sdsr (Aug 2, 2013)

mvrbnsn said:


> I'd like to add a DSLR for increased capability; landscapes--day and night, portraits (just family). For budget I was thinking of either a refurb T3i or the EOS M simply because of it's small size, less weight and current price.
> 
> What are your thoughts as to overall image quality between the two cameras? Do you think the EOS M kit 18-55 is better than the T3i kit for example? Or any other discriminators in favor of one or the other.



Among other cameras I own a S95 and an M and briefly owned at T3i. Both cameras you're considering will give you significantly better photos than your S95, especially as the light level drops. I didn't own them simultaneously and thus haven't done direct comparisons, so I may be wrong, but I get the impression that the M has better picture quality than the T3i in two areas - more accurate colors (especially in unnatural light, though this matters less if you shoot RAW) and less intrusive noise at higher ISOs. As for the two kit zoom lenses, I've not used any of its EF-S incarnations; reviews I've read seem to agree that the EF-M version is better. I've only had mine for a couple of days and not tested it extensively, but it seems to make very good images and to be very well made despite its low price (even so, I prefer using the 22mm prime, even though its not a focal length I ordinarily like using much).

The M also has a major advantage over any DSLR in terms of auto-focusing - namely, you can put the focus point anywhere you want on the screen; you're not restricted to dots in the middle of the viewfinder.

But that's its sole mechanical advantage, though. In every other way DSLRs just work better - they start up faster, you can take photos in very quick succession and, to get back to focusing, you can focus precisely much more quickly and easily because the focus points are smaller (this doesn't matter much if you're only photographing large subjects). On the M the focus box ("point" is entirely the wrong word) is too big for precise, selective focusing; you have to use the magnification box instead and zoom in (you can't make the focus box smaller). This usually works well (though on a few occasions I couldn't get the camera to focus at all) but it's a rather slow process and requires you to have composed the image as you want it before you start focusing; if you change your mind about composition even slightly you have to start over (unless you want to crop later). 

On a related note, it's easier to hand-hold a DSLR (or any other view-finder camera) steadily than a mirrorless or other non-view-finder camera. Unfortunately, the M doesn't have in-body stabilization, so you have to rely on in-lens stabilization; and nowhere near enough Canon lenses have it (including EF-M lenses - the 22mm doesn't have it). Your S95 is always stabilized, so you should be aware of this.

And on a note related to that one, to date there are only two EF-M lenses; at present you simply can't go longer than 55mm or wider than 18mm without attaching another Canon lens via an adapter. Most of them are rather large relative to an M body, and while I've not tried this myself, it's surely easier to use a larger lens on a DSLR than on a little box you have to hold away from your face.

I've no idea, of course, how important any of these considerations are to you; for one thing, the M's handling is more irritating if you come to it from a DSLR rather than, as you would be, from a point-and-shoot. In terms of sheer picture quality, both options you're considering will be a big step up. If you were willing/able to spend more I might suggest something different (e.g. one of the better M43 cameras or waiting for the 70D). Otherwise, don't rule out, cough, Nikon - you can get great deals on refurbished D5100s, for instance, and if you were unlikely to want to move up to a FF body you may well do better with them; entry level DSLRs are probably their forte.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 2, 2013)

sdsr said:


> the M's handling is more irritating if you come to it from a DSLR rather than, as you would be, from a point-and-shoot. In terms of sheer picture quality, both options you're considering will be a big step up.



Agreed.

The OP is upgrading from an S95, so the EOS-M controls and handling will be similar or better. Somebody conditioned to using a DLSR will have more frustration with the M.


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 5, 2013)

enraginangel said:


> Canon has already has an answer to your dilemma and it isn't the Canon EOS M or the Canon T3i. It is....:drumroll:...
> 
> The Canon SL1: The size is between the T3i and M and the performance is closer to a T3i than it is to an M. Plus you don't need an adapter to use all of Canon's lenses.



I considered the SL1. But, it is larger and more expensive than the M. Coming from the OP's point & shoot, the SL1 would be, after learning how to use a DSLR, an amazing upgrade. But the, there is the added expense of EF or EF-s lenses and the step up in size (even though the SL1 is the smallest Rebel out there) is also a factor.

I am on a family beach vacation with my M, the 22, the 40+adapter, and the 18-55. This whole kit cost less than the SL1 by itself and this whole kit uses less space in my bag than my DSLR by itself. Are there frustrations? Yes.....if one is used to a viewfinder then using a screen (along with my aging eyes and the bright sun) is an issue as is the lag for shots and time between shots. But, this is not the camera I own for more serious photography adventures. It is the camera I own for a small package with decent IQ.

FWIW, I sat here this am looking at shots from this same location a couple of years back that I took on my D10 (waterproof P&S) and compared to some out of the camera JPEGs with my M yesterday, the difference in IQ is outstanding. The M is a nice little camera with a few shortcomings at a way lower price and smaller sized kit than the SL1.

Again, it depends on your goals. You won't go wrong with any choice you make. I'd go to a store and handle each of these then decide.


----------

