Considering reach on a compact: Canon EOS-M vs. Fuji X

Discussion in 'Canon EOS M Forum' started by wt21, Oct 14, 2013.

  1. wt21

    wt21 SC Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 15, 2010
    I've been thinking about a Fuji system for a while. Was planning on getting a used XM1 until the whole XM1/XA1 controversy kicked up.

    Now I'm thinking maybe I'll just still with my little EOS-M a while.

    I compared the Fuji 55-200 vs. the Canon 55-250 STM (3rd gen of this lens). I think I could do quite well with this lens.

    Attribute: Fuji vs Canon
    • Focal length equivalent: 84-305 vs 88-400: Canon gets more reach on the long end, same on the wide end
    • Aperture: 3.5-4.8 vs. 4.0-5.6: Fuji has a brighter aperture by 1/2 stop+
    • Min Focus Distance: 1.1m vs. .85m: for me, closer is always better, so the Canon wins here
    • Max Mag: .18x vs. .29x: Again, nicer on the Canon
    • Ap. blades: 7 vs. 7: Of course, that doesn't really tell you the bokeh. I'll have to look for samples
    • Filter size: 62mm vs. 58mm: for me, personally, I already have 58mm filters, as my other canon lenses are mostly 58mm
    • Size (DXL): 75X188mm vs. 70X111mm. That's a pretty sizable difference on length. Also, if I remember the Canon 55-250, there is minimal zoom creep because the front element isn't that heavy
    • Weight: 580g vs 375g: that's a huge difference for walking about in the Canon's favor
    • Price: $699 vs $349. That's a lot of savings.

    Fuji has a more "consumer" oriented zoom lens on their roadmap, but it's not out yet, and it has an even smaller aperture.
  2. rbelyell

    rbelyell SC Top Veteran

    May 14, 2013
    NY Mtns
    everyones different, but for me only three things are important in extreme telephoto: IBIS, a good viewfinder, and cutting down on size AMAP without discernibly sacrificing IQ. that led me to m4/3 for this purpose. i say 'keep it simple'. YVMV!