Review: Canon EOS M5 by DPReview

[Canon Rumors Guy]

DPReview has completed their review of the Canon EOS M5.</p>
<p><strong>From DPReview:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>The EOS M5 has plenty going for it. Shooting smooth, properly focused video is incredibly easy, and the new 24MP sensor has made great strides in overall image quality. Dual Pixel autofocus makes for faster, more precise focusing and really makes the M5 shine with adapted lenses. Unfortunately, it sits in a crowded market and its excellent usability can’t quite make up for the fact that you can arguably get more camera for less money elsewhere. <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m5-review">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Most of the reviews we’ve read about the Canon EOS M5 have been relatively positive, especially when compared to the first iterations of the EOS M system. Canon may have “caught up” in most cased as far as a mirrorless body goes, but they are still lacking lenses for more serious shooters, autofocus is still middle of the road, and there’s still a feeling Canon isn’t fully invested in mirrorless systems in their current form.</p>
<p>It looks like the EOS M5 is a good buy if you want to stay with the familiarity of the Canon system.</p>
<ul>
<li>Canon  EOS M5 Body: <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281373-REG/canon_1279c001aa_eos_m5_mirrorless_digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2cXfxRm">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ICAM5.html?KBID=64393">Adorama</a> | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-eos-m5-mirrorless-digital-camera-body-only.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></li>
<li>Canon EOS M5 w/15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM: <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281375-REG/canon_1279c011aa_eos_m5_mirrorless_digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2cXfxRm">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ICAM5K.html?KBID=64393">Adorama</a> | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-eos-m5-mirrorless-digital-camera-with-ef-m-15-45mm-lens-kit.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></li>
<li>Canon EOS M5 w/18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM: <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281376-REG/canon_1279c021aa_eos_m5_mirrorless_digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2cXfxRm">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ICAM5K1.html?KBID=64393">Adorama</a> | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-eos-m5-mirrorless-digital-camera-with-ef-m-18-150mm-lens-kit.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[AvTvM]

"... can’t quite make up for the fact that you can arguably get more camera for less money elsewhere. "

Totally ridiculous. There is NO other APS-C mirrorless system (bodies plus lenses) on the entire market offering better price-performance ratio. Not that the Canon EOS M5 is "perfect" in any way. Or "fully competitive" in all aspects (sensor, DR, AF system, ...) with all other manufacturer's offerings. Lots of angles for criticism. But not for price-performance. After all, Sony A6500 is not any cheaper and Oly want to charge 2 grand for a quarter-sensor mFT camera ("OMD OMG II").

The entire review just reeks of the well-known Anti-Canon bias of dpreview. Just look at their choice of "2016 products of the year" ...

And this comes from me, definitely not a card-carrying member of the Canon Defense League.

 

[sebasan]

I have stopped reading DPReview a long time ago. They are not good photographers and make totally biased reviews.

 

[rwvaughn]

The real problem with dpreview and the numerous photography magazine reviews is that many of the websites and all of the magazines are supported by ad revenue from camera manufacturers. Open any magazine and three fourths of the pages in it are ads. Look at many of the popular websites and count the ads in the left or right column.

Have you honestly ever seen a review in a magazine, or online, that said a camera body or lens was absolute junk and you should not buy it? Have you seen a review, or opinion, that absolutely blasted a camera vendor? You never will because the publisher realizes the moment they tell the truth about a product that is inferior they get punished by a retraction of ad revenue.

You have to read between the lines of nearly all reviews to determine whether the reviewers "minor found faults" with a product really signal larger issues. Some companies products stand on their own while other companies whore their brand name out with large ad buys to fool the consumer. You can tell the whores from the really good camera product manufacturers.... five large ads from one third party manufacturer in a recent magazine compared to one small ad from both Canon and Nikon. Ads and reviews don't always represent quality and reliability.

 

[Boyer U. Klum-Cey]

The M is starting to look better. I will take a look when my SL1 dies, or getz handed down to grandchildren, in a couple of years.

 

[Jopa]

Where is Dustin? Need a real review, not DPR BS...

 

[Otara]

"... can’t quite make up for the fact that you can arguably get more camera for less money elsewhere. "

Totally ridiculous. There is NO other APS-C mirrorless system (bodies plus lenses) on the entire market offering better price-performance ratio. Not that the Canon EOS M5 is "perfect" in any way. Or "fully competitive" in all aspects (sensor, DR, AF system, ...) with all other manufacturer's offerings. Lots of angles for criticism. But not for price-performance. After all, Sony A6500 is not any cheaper and Oly want to charge 2 grand for a quarter-sensor mFT camera ("OMD OMG II").

The entire review just reeks of the well-known Anti-Canon bias of dpreview. Just look at their choice of "2016 products of the year" ...

And this comes from me, definitely not a card-carrying member of the Canon Defense League.

I view bias as a sign of differences becoming more meaningless from an absolute perspective.

The real giant is the drop in ILC in general. People need to buy new cameras less and less, so there has to be an argument why you'd buy any new camera at all vs the flood of perfectly usable secondhand ones around that is growing larger and larger as an alternative. For that you have to create reasons not to buy one as well.

 

[JMZawodny]

As always, I skip what they wrote and go straight to the data. The RAW images from the M5 compare very closely to those from the 7D2 at high ISO (like 1600). It is still a good 2-stops worse than the 1Dx2, as it should given the cost difference. The Kodak gray scale seems to show an extra block or two on the black end of the scale compared to the 7D2. Initial data look promising. Now I just need to wait for the price to come down.

 

[sephknite]

Where is Dustin? Need a real review, not DPR BS...

I think Dustin put up an overview. I'm waiting for his awesome review of the same camera as well.

 

[Quackator]

The M5 is a great camera, love it very much, carry it as
mandatory minimum and always along the big ones.

It has only one really big downside: Canon has deliberately
crippled it so it can't tether to a computer, not via USB nor Wifi.

Signing up für Canon image gateway is no option, because
that lacks remote control via EOS utility, only works with
an active internet connection on the computer and requires
that a copy of the images be uploaded to CIG.

Add insult to injury and look at the fact that even the cheapest
Rebel can tether without any problems at a third of the price.

 

[Etienne]

I may end up buying the M5, but I was hoping for a more pro body. Something that could produce images and video that, in a pinch, could stand beside the 5D4 and the upcoming C100 mk III, which means it needed some form of 4K, and excellent 1080p. A full swivel screen would make a huge difference, and of course more primes.
Make it and charge accordingly.

 

[rrcphoto]

The M5 is a great camera, love it very much, carry it as
mandatory minimum and always along the big ones.

It has only one really big downside: Canon has deliberately
crippled it so it can't tether to a computer, not via USB nor Wifi.

I always love to hear things like this .. you got facts that it was deliberate?

when magic lantern looked at it being a possible to add in after the fact, they found that the core liveview was "wired" differently and simply unable to hook into the canon API's - it was running twice as fast as a DSLR as far as framerate and the EOS utility simply wasn't able to interface.

is that deliberate crippling?

Not really, to support contrast detect you do have to run at faster framerates. the M5 runs at up to 4 times faster than a DSLR as far as liveview framerates.

could they fix it? perhaps, but it would require according to magic lantern when they pulled it apart and looked it, not an insignificant effort.

Needless to say, the requirements of mirrorless require faster framerates, and it's hardly "crippling" by not supporting it.

Deliberately crippling means that they could have done it, and simply switched the feature off. this is probably not the case. Not all canon cameras connect via wifi to the computer either.

#assumptions

 

[Woody]

Agreed. Glad that you recognize this too.

"... can’t quite make up for the fact that you can arguably get more camera for less money elsewhere. "

Totally ridiculous. There is NO other APS-C mirrorless system (bodies plus lenses) on the entire market offering better price-performance ratio. Not that the Canon EOS M5 is "perfect" in any way. Or "fully competitive" in all aspects (sensor, DR, AF system, ...) with all other manufacturer's offerings. Lots of angles for criticism. But not for price-performance. After all, Sony A6500 is not any cheaper and Oly want to charge 2 grand for a quarter-sensor mFT camera ("OMD OMG II").

The entire review just reeks of the well-known Anti-Canon bias of dpreview. Just look at their choice of "2016 products of the year" ...

And this comes from me, definitely not a card-carrying member of the Canon Defense League.

 

[cookestudios]

The real problem with dpreview and the numerous photography magazine reviews is that many of the websites and all of the magazines are supported by ad revenue from camera manufacturers. Open any magazine and three fourths of the pages in it are ads. Look at many of the popular websites and count the ads in the left or right column.

Have you honestly ever seen a review in a magazine, or online, that said a camera body or lens was absolute junk and you should not buy it? Have you seen a review, or opinion, that absolutely blasted a camera vendor? You never will because the publisher realizes the moment they tell the truth about a product that is inferior they get punished by a retraction of ad revenue.

You have to read between the lines of nearly all reviews to determine whether the reviewers "minor found faults" with a product really signal larger issues. Some companies products stand on their own while other companies whore their brand name out with large ad buys to fool the consumer. You can tell the whores from the really good camera product manufacturers.... five large ads from one third party manufacturer in a recent magazine compared to one small ad from both Canon and Nikon. Ads and reviews don't always represent quality and reliability.

I'm an editor at Fstoppers and I can assure you that the camera gear review game is not the biased manufacturer-pleasing game some people think it is. It does us no good to undermine our credibility in the long run.

 

[privatebydesign]

The real problem with dpreview and the numerous photography magazine reviews is that many of the websites and all of the magazines are supported by ad revenue from camera manufacturers. Open any magazine and three fourths of the pages in it are ads. Look at many of the popular websites and count the ads in the left or right column.

Have you honestly ever seen a review in a magazine, or online, that said a camera body or lens was absolute junk and you should not buy it? Have you seen a review, or opinion, that absolutely blasted a camera vendor? You never will because the publisher realizes the moment they tell the truth about a product that is inferior they get punished by a retraction of ad revenue.

You have to read between the lines of nearly all reviews to determine whether the reviewers "minor found faults" with a product really signal larger issues. Some companies products stand on their own while other companies whore their brand name out with large ad buys to fool the consumer. You can tell the whores from the really good camera product manufacturers.... five large ads from one third party manufacturer in a recent magazine compared to one small ad from both Canon and Nikon. Ads and reviews don't always represent quality and reliability.

I'm an editor at Fstoppers and I can assure you that the camera gear review game is not the biased manufacturer-pleasing game some people think it is. It does us no good to undermine our credibility in the long run.

Give me a break. Fstoppers stopped being interesting or relevant years ago, now it is largely just rehashed marketing waffle and irrelevant drivel gleaned from any number of other sites doing the same thing all driven by the need for clicks for advertising dollars and the inevitable linked in classes, cruises, and teaching courses.

DPR have undermined their credibility on many occasions, we have had the discussion here with Rishi from DPR himself, it takes three seconds to tie him up in knots he can't get out of. DxO are the same, though they don't engage (probably because most posters here don't speak French!), however it would take somebody like Neuro here ten seconds to give them ample examples of their own bias (their own camera's RAW performance for a start!) and mistakes they refuse to admit.

There are a couple of standout sites and posters who have earned respect and the honest expectation of impartiality. I'd put Roger at Lens Rentals at the top of a very small number.

 

[ritholtz]

"... can’t quite make up for the fact that you can arguably get more camera for less money elsewhere. "

Totally ridiculous. There is NO other APS-C mirrorless system (bodies plus lenses) on the entire market offering better price-performance ratio. Not that the Canon EOS M5 is "perfect" in any way. Or "fully competitive" in all aspects (sensor, DR, AF system, ...) with all other manufacturer's offerings. Lots of angles for criticism. But not for price-performance. After all, Sony A6500 is not any cheaper and Oly want to charge 2 grand for a quarter-sensor mFT camera ("OMD OMG II").

The entire review just reeks of the well-known Anti-Canon bias of dpreview. Just look at their choice of "2016 products of the year" ...

And this comes from me, definitely not a card-carrying member of the Canon Defense League.

I am really surprised 1dx2 didn't make it to 2016 product of year. It is best of both the worlds and everything. It has one of the best view finder focusing system and video AF system. DPReview kind ignores target user group most of the time and provides detailed review. They excused DR in D5 and lack of on sensor focusing system for D500 during video based on some imaginary target users though. M5 is pretty good if some one already with Canon. But others it is really not that much better than A6000. Sony released a6300 and a6500 later.

I actually like Canon M lens. There are few but covers lot of range for the price with good iq. EF to M mount adapter is also pretty straightforward unlike Sony adapters for EF or A mount. But Sony released lot of FE lens which can be used on Sony crop mirrorless.

 

[AvTvM]

exactly!

sources/reviewers i trust most are:
* roger cicala/ lensrentals.com
* klaus schroiff / photozone.de
* dustin Abbott / canonrumors.com
* brian carnahan / thedigitalpicture.com

third tier - clearly biased, but still some good nuggets of information:
* ming thein
* photoscala.de
* lenstip.pl
* Thom Hogan / bythom.com
* dpreview.com

zero trust, least useful:
* DXO

* kenrockwell.com - seriously!

 

[AlanF]

As always, I skip what they wrote and go straight to the data. The RAW images from the M5 compare very closely to those from the 7D2 at high ISO (like 1600). It is still a good 2-stops worse than the 1Dx2, as it should given the cost difference. The Kodak gray scale seems to show an extra block or two on the black end of the scale compared to the 7D2. Initial data look promising. Now I just need to wait for the price to come down.

The noise is 2-stops worse not because of the price difference but because the area of the sensor is under half that of the 1DX II and there are more pixels. Cropped to the same size, the IQ of my M5 is somewhat better than that of my 7DII and nearly as as good as my 5DS R.

Actually, the dpreview is pretty complimentary.

 

[M_S]

exactly!

sources/reviewers i trust most are:
* roger cicala/ lensrentals.com
* klaus schroiff / photozone.de
* dustin Abbott / canonrumors.com
* brian carnahan / thedigitalpicture.com

third tier - clearly biased, but still some good nuggets of information:
* ming thein
* photoscala.de
* lenstip.pl
* Thom Hogan / bythom.com
* dpreview.com

zero trust, least useful:
* DXO

* kenrockwell.com - seriously!

Dustin Abbott finds most of the stuff he tests great. For me there is too much "pleasing" in there.

 

[hachu21]

Don't forget digital photgraphy is becoming a mature market.
the early crazy years are gone, and now it will be difficult to name a really bad product based on measurable data (at least objective ones).

Yep, almost all cameras are now good technically. The last I remenber are EOS M1 and Pentak K-01, both of them produce very good results.