Review: Canon EOS M5 by DPReview

[Quackator]

EOS utility is a legacy product from canon (...)

.... that is delivered with every serious Canon camera so far.....

Legacy? Get real......

 

[rrcphoto]

EOS Utility is bundled software with every current Canon camera (at least EOS camera, not sure for Powershots). I am not aware that EOS Utility was declared legacy software by Canon. Do you have a source for your claim?

Canon WiFI implementation (like Nikon's) generally sucks and was further NERFED and CRIPPLED in M5 (as in some previous EOS M bodies already). No amount of demagogic tricks by Canon Defense League members can distract from this fact.

mm sorry, forgot the word .. "API" in there. the API has a fixed framerate, and it supports older EOS products via tethering since what .. the 40D?

Supposedly it would be very difficult for canon to adjust this strictly for the M's that operate at a higher framerate than EOS bodies.

regular EOS runs at 30 frames per second. the M's ran at 60, and the M5 runs at 120.

anyways, it's not deliberately crippling, with the higher framerate that the M's need to run for on sensor AF, it makes it incompatible with EOS Utility, that has to support the wider scope of EOS cameras.

Edit: and how is canon's wifi nerfed? the use of BLE is a step forward.

 

[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.

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.

Sorry to hear you feel that way. You're always welcome to get in touch with us if you have ideas for improvement or things you'd like to see us cover or if you'd be interested in contributing.

 

[bholliman]

.........<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. ......

Ummm....have we read it carefully? 8) Did anyone notice the fatal flaw in the camera??, as far as I am concerned? I am referring to the problem reported by dpreview where they claim that the shutter is unresponsive.

On page 7:
"Shutter button lacks responsiveness"
and later on in the same page:

"and the shutter can be unresponsive at times; mashing it to grab a fleeting moment won't always fire off an image, as you need to intentionally half-press before every shot for reliable results. "

Also on page 4 there is more detail:

"Intentionally half-pressing before shots or keeping the shutter half-pressed between shots will result in the most responsive experience (because focus and exposure are already locked), but if you take your finger off the shutter button and then mash it (perhaps to capture an unexpected moment), you'll be greeted with a solid delay before the camera fires, even if your subject hasn't changed much in depth. Unfortunately, even attempting to circumvent the camera's need to lock focus and exposure by enabling back-button (or manual) focus and shooting in full manual doesn't resolve this issue."


For this day and age, this is totally unacceptable especially in a thousand dollar camera!
Remember, we are not handling a cellphone here. Even most current point and shoots will fire off their shutter if the button is mashed. I got a Olympus TG-4, it sure does. ;D

My 6D will ABSOLUTELY 100% fire off a shot if I press the shutter, no matter what, focus and/or exposure locked or not (I use back button focus). ;D

I had a little bit of discussion there about this problem:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m5-review?comment=3321734778

I've had an M5 for several weeks now and have been shooting extensively with it. To tell you the truth, I never noticed the shutter being unresponsive. After reading this I went back and did some side-by-side comparisons with my 5DsR. In single shot mode, the M5 shutter does take a fraction of a second longer to take a picture than the 5D, but to me its hardly noticeable. If I'm shooting people, I generally using servo and continuous drive mode anyway, so not and issue with moving subjects.

Comparisons to a cell phone are humorous, the M5 is a very capable camera.

 

[gordonbb]

I decided a few years ago to wait until DPR published a review of the 1DX before paying any further attention to them.

 

[Adrianf]

My concern is vignetting. Photozone have reviewed three EOS-M lenses and all exhibit serious vignetting at the shorter focal lengths. For example, it was -2.9 stops difference centre-to-edge on the 11-22 EF-M at 11mm. Compare that to their review of the 10-22mm EF-S at 10mm on an APS-C sensor and the value was -1.42 stops.
They were concerned that the fault might actually be the camera (an M3). They suggest it could be the short lens-to-sensor distance that it the problem. If so, then maybe using EF or EF-S lenses on the adaptor may fix the problem - but then the size advantage is being lost...
As an owner of many Canon cameras (Compact, APS-C and FF) and lenses for many years I was just about to buy an M3 until I read their reviews. What I'm now wondering is, is the M5 any better? Or is the vignetting an inevitable feature of the EOS-M design concept?

 

[studio1972]

"... 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").

They are probably comparing it to cameras like the XT10 which is cheaper and has a much better lens selection and upgrade path to the XT2 etc, which is in a different league to the Canon.

 

[njene]

Most review sites can be biased one way or another

So sites like DPReview , I would read and compare it with other reviews to determine what I can have confidence in trusting

 

[josephandrews222]

My concern is vignetting. Photozone have reviewed three EOS-M lenses and all exhibit serious vignetting at the shorter focal lengths. For example, it was -2.9 stops difference centre-to-edge on the 11-22 EF-M at 11mm. Compare that to their review of the 10-22mm EF-S at 10mm on an APS-C sensor and the value was -1.42 stops.
They were concerned that the fault might actually be the camera (an M3). They suggest it could be the short lens-to-sensor distance that it the problem. If so, then maybe using EF or EF-S lenses on the adaptor may fix the problem - but then the size advantage is being lost...
As an owner of many Canon cameras (Compact, APS-C and FF) and lenses for many years I was just about to buy an M3 until I read their reviews. What I'm now wondering is, is the M5 any better? Or is the vignetting an inevitable feature of the EOS-M design concept?

Below is an out-of-camera jpeg that has been downsized for easy viewing; there were no other corrections in what the M2/11-22mm (at 11mm) was able to acquire--except that the in-camera option to correct for vignetting has been activated.

I do worry about the M3 at wide angles, though, based on the same review that you've cited...still haven't bought one!

 

[Adrianf]

The in camera compensation boosts the corner brightness. That will increase noise in the corners.
Maybe Canon realise that there's a problem and that's the reason why they haven't released many EF-M lenses?

 

[neuroanatomist]

The in camera compensation boosts the corner brightness. That will increase noise in the corners.
Maybe Canon realise that there's a problem and that's the reason why they haven't released many EF-M lenses?

So instead they released the 16-35mm f/2.8L III that costs more than all the EF-M lenses combined and has >4 stops of vignetting?

Actually, given the duration of (relatively short) and extent of investment in (relatively light) the M, the number of lenses – 7 so far – is pretty good, IMO.

 

[Adrianf]

Hmmm. I hadn't previously heard of the 16-35 problem - but that's on FF and the EOS-M is only APS-C.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Hmmm. I hadn't previously heard of the 16-35 problem - but that's on FF and the EOS-M is only APS-C.

So is your point that Canon isn't releasing lenses for the M because of the 'vignetting problem' for a consumer-oriented system (lots of full auto jpg shooters, few pixel peepers) with a current maximum lens cost of $500 and bodies costing up to $1000, but has no problem releasing lenses with worse vignetting for an enthusiast- and pro-oriented system with bodies and lenses running thousands of dollars? Sorry, but that logic just doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

[eric_ykchan]

Still comparing to the first generation?

 

[AYD]

I have been a Canon and Pentax user for more than 30 years and currently use a 6D, 7D MkII and K-1.

I recently got a M5 based on its specs and potential. I will clearly say that it is not meant to replace a DSLR with OVF, and it is aimed as a primary camera for enthusiasts and a back-up camera for pros.
Regarding the unresponsiveness of the shutter button, it will NOT fire if it hasn't locked focus, a item aimed at beginners and enthusiasts, and not pros. There is no option to enable shutter firing without focus NOT being locked.
This is a problem if you let focus go and then mash the shutter. This could easily be fixed in firmware, in-fact the 80D does this, I believe.

The touchscreen is very sensitive and I use it for candid photos with touch focus and fire shutter. Works great, unless the light is below ~0 EV and the focus beam is not effective, for whatever reason, such as the subject being too far or too close.

Another Dpreview complaint was regarding viewfinder blackout. There is no blackout while shooting as long as the buffer isn't filled up. Then the blackout isn't viewfinder blackout (since you shouldn't be shooting when the buffer is emptying to the card).

I find the 7D Mark II to better at higher ISO's by 1/2 stop and worse than the M5 at 100~200 ISO by a hair. The 4 extra MP in the M% makes up for this.

The biggest advantage of the M5 and EF-M native lenses is size and weight, that makes a huge difference at times, such as hiking or travelling and being inconspicuous.

The vignetting on the EF-M lenses isn't a deal breaker, at least since it is at wide open apertures and can be fixed in post. All the current lenses are better than most similar lenses at the price points that they sell at.
Hence its not the end of the world if you lose/damage a $400 lens versus a $1,500 or more lens. Hence as a back-up camera really works with DSLR's. The compatibility with EF/EF-S lenses with the adapter maintains full functionality, unlike with other brands, a big plus for anyone invested in Canon Glass.

The tilting VF is great for macros, candids/selfies and videos etc.

It has 2 Custom functions unlike some other competitors in this price range.

It isnt weather sealed but fits nicely in a ziploc freezer bag, unlike a DSLR.

All in all, a NICE camera with very few down-sides what what you expect in this segment.

To me it is definitely a GOLD as opposed to a Silver from DPR. DPR needs to align with price-points and compare cameras with their competitors in that price range, as a SYSTEM.

No pint comparing with Sony 6xxx and Olympus micro 4/3rds and Fujis when their lenses are sometimes worse and the good ones cost 2-3 times as much.

 

[Adrianf]

Hmmm. I hadn't previously heard of the 16-35 problem - but that's on FF and the EOS-M is only APS-C.

So is your point that Canon isn't releasing lenses for the M because of the 'vignetting problem' for a consumer-oriented system (lots of full auto jpg shooters, few pixel peepers) with a current maximum lens cost of $500 and bodies costing up to $1000, but has no problem releasing lenses with worse vignetting for an enthusiast- and pro-oriented system with bodies and lenses running thousands of dollars? Sorry, but that logic just doesn't pass the sniff test.

Nope - that was not my point. What I was trying to say is that Canon have failed in what should be an easier technical challenge. Surely it should be easier to avoid vignetting on APS-C?

 

[neuroanatomist]

What I was trying to say is that Canon have failed in what should be an easier technical challenge. Surely it should be easier to avoid vignetting on APS-C?

Got it. Sure, it's easier to avoid vignetting on APS-C...just make bigger lenses. Except that a main point of the M line is the small size of both cameras and lenses.

Compared to the M11-22 with ~3 stops of vignetting, both the corresponding focal length EF 11-24/4L and the 'FF equivalent' EF 16-35/2.8L III have >4 stops vignetting.

 

[Adrianf]

Good point, well made. So the M system is really no worse than pro standard FF gear. Hmmm. Maybe I will buy an M3 then....

 

[neuroanatomist]

Good point, well made. So the M system is really no worse than pro standard FF gear. Hmmm. Maybe I will buy an M3 then....

Well...except for the smaller sensor., and a few other little things.

But indeed, APS-C cameras are generally very good, particularly in good light, and have substantial advantages in terms of cost and size for both bodies and lenses. Still, if I'm shooting my kids during indoor activities (gymnastics, horseback riding in an arena, etc.), I'll reach for the 1D X and an f/2.8 zoom.

 

[dak723]

Nope - that was not my point. What I was trying to say is that Canon have failed in what should be an easier technical challenge. Surely it should be easier to avoid vignetting on APS-C?

Unless you reduce the flange distance, then you increase the technical challenge. Since mirrorless wants to go smaller, the smaller flange distance can be an issue, as it is on the FF Sonys.