Old Model Canon EOS-M vs Sony A6000

Had the unfortunate experience of finally flying an early Model EOS-M mirrorless with a 20 ( ?) in high winds off
Cape Cod. The wind had gone from nil to serious, finally over-taxing the stock fiberglass spars of the Levitation.
In a " do-over " I would have been using shorter spreader, Mike's Dynamic spreader, and or Sky Shark 400, which
is what I normally use.

The camera and all R/C components were thoroughly dunked in the sea.

I do have a used, spare EOS-M body and a kit lens. Question is, which way to go.

I have had my eye on a Sony 6000 ( with a prime ) for some time. I know Jim Wind Watcher and Evan both do well
with it.

Cris, I believe, uses an "M", early ? , with a wide prime and seemed happy with it.

In most likely looking to the used market, any thoughts on why to choose one ( older ) , proven system over another ?

Many thanks,


  • edited September 2018
    My most recent rig is built around the EOS-M3 and the EF-M 11-22 mm lens. I have been quite happy with this combination. The KAP cradle before that was based on the original EOS-M, which also worked quite well. The M3 seems more responsive and has a higher resolution sensor.

    EOS-M cradle: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kap_cris/12491005925

  • Thank you, Cris !
  • edited September 2018

    I would feel remiss if I did not extol the virtues of the Ricoh GR. I have shot aerial photos with the A6000, the EOS-M (original release), and the Ricoh GR and I by far prefer the Ricoh GR. It is very compact, lightweight (250 grams), has a fine APS-C sensor, a fast, sharp, fixed 28mm (equivalent) lens, and a built in intervalometer. Assuming 28mm works for you, I find it the ideal camera for aerial photography (kite, balloon, and drone).
  • Thanks Michael, I shall have a look. Your preference includes sharpness etc... ? End result you prefer comes from the Ricoh ?
    Do you print very large ?
    28 mm could work .... though I got intrigued by Cris's mention of an 11 - 22 , wide, oh my !
    Good to hear from you.
  • edited September 2018

    I am not an excessive pixel peeper, and think that the images from all 3 cameras are extremely good. I rarely print larger than 12"x18", but all of these cameras being discussed should produce excellent prints at larger sizes.

    My preference for the Ricoh is related to compactness and weight, and the internal intervalometer. This preference is specifically for aerial photography.

    I used to shoot aerials with a Sony NEX-5 until the Ricoh came along. I also presently own an A6000 with a couple of zoom and prime lenses which I use for most other situations. The A6000 was one of the first of the Sony cameras with both an APS-C sensor and an electronic viewfinder and for which I was able to use the Sony e-mount lenses I already owned. But because of the size and weight difference between the Ricoh and the A6000, I would never consider using the A6000 for aerial photography as long as the Ricoh is available.

    The 11-22mm lens for the EOS-M that Cris mentions translates to approximately 18-35mm (in 35mm equivalence).
  • I have used all the cameras mention above and to be honest, you can’t go wrong in which ever direction you choose to go. I loved the canon EOS-M and Sony nex-5, a6000 but the way I triggered them I felt was clumsy through IR. At the moment I use the Ricoh GR for its light weight and built in intervalometer. The Nikon Coolpix A for the Nikon raw images I get from the camera plus the built in intervalometer. Finally on rare occasion when the winds are perfect I will use my Sony A7 to get higher quality images because of the full frame sensor. Like I said you really can’t go wrong with the choices above it all comes down to style of KAPing your comfortable with.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion