I have a Sony RX100 II that I end up using for winter skiing and snowshoeing. It's thin enough to keep inside my coat and keep warm. It also comes with a nice hard leather case and neck strap, so it's easy to carry and have handy, and yet incredibly well protected - the leather case isn't very big, but makes the camera nearly indestructible.

But I still wish I could carry a DLSR. I have a Canon SL1 that's pretty small, but it is still big enough that it gets in the way. What I really need a smaller gut... Nonetheless, I decided to look into mirrorless cameras as someone suggested to me earlier. I really liked the
Sony A7 II and the Sony A6300 . But I was appalled at the price and size of most of the
lenses. So I decided to try out the much maligned
and slow focusing Canon EOS M3 mirrorless APS-C camera.

The only positive for the Canon is basically price, price, and price. And, minor but important detail, the Canon 20mm/f2 pancake lens seems to be a better one that the Sony equivalent for the A6300, and you can find it used for about half to a third the price.

I was able to get the M3 with adapter for $300, and the 20mm/f2 for $150 used. A lot of money for an "experiment", but I think I can fit it under my jacket. Plus, for now with the free adapter that came in the $300 camera package, I can re-use my bigger Canon lenses. I am hoping maybe 3-5 years down the road Canon will get their mirrorless act together, and I can upgrade then. Or maybe I just work on a smaller gut. It just didn't seem like I could ever afford the nicer Sony A6300 and the lenses together. But in hindsight, I wish I would have started with an a6000.

Here are some comparison pictures for size - Canon SL1, Canon EOS M3, and Sony RX100. Also, the EOS M3 with the adapter and my APS-C 10-18mm lens.

that's a whole lot of stuff i don't understand, but very interesting! if i were going skiing or doing something active where i might fall down i would take the smallest camera. if i were doing something where i'd be meandering along and could easily start and stop i'd take either of the others if i felt i'd get better shots with those.

not knowing what temps you'd be out in i'd think the smallest camera would be the easiest to keep warm. do you keep it in a breast pocket or do you have an extra pocket sewn inside near the armpit area for maximum warmth?

also not sure what you mean by "gut" so i don't want to assume anything other than you're speaking of a human body part or a camera body part :).

if you are a professional then maybe you want to camera you'll get the most use from?

i've had some spectacular results with a small camera as well as my larger camera that is bulky so i feel it's hit and miss for me, i also don't do much post-processing.

your mother would tell you to only spend what you can honestly afford! but, you do what you want!!

quote Mocha: "that's a whole lot of stuff i don't understand...
"

Yes, at my house we call my last post "droning". What I meant to say was, "I got a mirrorless camera, now what?"

"I got a mirrorless camera, now what?"

Get out and use it!
I went mirrorless DSLR last April with a used Oly OMD EM5, via Ebay. 12x50mm EZ lens, added a M.ZUIKO ED 40-150MM. Happy with it and use it almost daily. It does have limitations, high speed action shots are one area (auto road races). Still learning it though. 12 photo sequence burst mode of my grandson sliding into second base. Used the 40-150 from behind 3rd.
Lots of lens options from Oly and other 4/3rds makers along with a variety of adapters are finding their way into the used market.
It will not replace my more traditional DSLRs, but is much nicer to carry and pack. It is the camera that stays at hand now. It shrunk the packed photo gear size and weight by half easily.
I find it better to keep my camera at the exposed temp to keep fogging to a minimum. I pocket spare batteries to keep them warm.

butthead

So how is it going with the Canon ? I am a Sony fan by the way. Although expensive, I think you do get what you pay for with Sony. The camera bodies are relatively inexpensive but the nicer lenses are more expensive.

quote jeroldharter: "So how is it going with the Canon ? I am a Sony fan by the way. Although expensive, I think you do get what you pay for with Sony. The camera bodies are relatively inexpensive but the nicer lenses are more expensive."

I'm satisfied with the Canon M3, but I wouldn't recommend it to friends. I think Canons newer mirrorless cameras like M5/M6 are "almost" worth having, but they are probably two generations away from being competitive - and prices are too high for what they offer. That said, for me it's a question of "what lens?". Size, budget, image quality, what you already own, etc. So I decided to stick with Canon for now - I was really after the 22mm f2 lens. For others I would recommend Sony or micro 4/3rds.

Here are some pictures. With the 22mm lens, the camera fits under my jacket to stay warm. In bright light I could actually get the M3 to focus with a 300mm lens and a 1.4x converter; but, the M3 struggles in low light with almost any lens. I had trouble with exposure with the overcast sky and the snow. I attribute that partly to user error, and partly to the camera.

The thing I did like about the Canon M3 is that it has this feature called live view. It lets you control/view the camera remotely by smartphone or laptop. For wildlife, you could set up the camera really close to a nest or a perch, and then view live/control the camera from 50ft away and wait for a shot. I'm going to try this when the woodpeckers come back to my yard this spring.

One of the best mirrorless cameras out there has to be the Fujifilm Xt-2. It's certainly not cheap but it is so delightfully old school and user friendly that I believe it is worth every penny. One of the huge advantages it has over the Sony (and lets face it, for shear image quality, the Sony Alpha A7r is still the best mirrorless out there) is the quality and scope of their lenses. On top of that the Fuji is a third cheaper and significantly smaller - not the body of the camera but Sony, being full frame, means their lenses are very large, bulky and heavy. So if a mirrorless is also about portability, the Fuji is pretty impressive. If you don't want to go all the way with the Xt-2, the Xt-1 is also a great camera and with the introduction of the Xt-2, available new or used at very good prices. I can't recommend this camera enough!

First tries of the night sky. M3 with Rokinon 12mm f2 lens.

Nice pics. I'm not sure what your settings were for those shots but it looks like the stars are not quite in focus. ISO should be between 1600 and 3200, around 18 - 20 sec, f/2 - 2.8 (all approximations.) Of course you'll want to focus manually (with that lens, you don't actually have a choice) and that can be tricky. Remember that the infinity stop on most modern lenses tends to go beyond infinity so you'd be best to play with the lens during daylight hours, find where infinity is and use some gaffers tape to set it for later. By the way, I just picked up that very same lens for my Fuji Xt-1. I haven't had a chance to try it out but everyone I've spoken to raves about it. I'll be taking it with me this summer for my month long trip in August and hope to capture some nice night sky Milky Way shots out where there is no light pollution. I look forward to seeing more of your night sky photographs.

This is my second try with the M3 doing night shots. This time I used a tripod, and I used a flashlight shined on a faraway tree to help me have something to set infinity focus on - still a bit off. I put the flashlight in a cloth bag to create a diffuse front light on the trees, so they'd show up in the pictures at about the same brightness as the stars. A bit of messing around in lightroom - I had a lens profile for the Canon 22mm lens, but not the Rokinon 12mm. These are actually ISO100, 15sec, lenses at about f2.8. Lots of city light noise, and not many stars.

This is the Rokinon 12mm/f2 ef-m lens:






This is the Canon 22mm/f2 ef-m lens:












This is a Canon 40mm/f2.8 lens: