M5
- Thread starter nda
- Start date
Kind of a nice, irreverant review like he's always done. Did not cover all the information I'd like to see but adds to the space nicely now that more are getting real-world experience with this camera. I am real interested in an ultimate M3 with EDV vs M5 comparison. After a less than wonderful M1 ownership experience (given my shooting style) just spent a weekend in NYC with the M3 / Viewfinder (left the FF kit at home) and seemed to work pretty well, but I might want to move up to the M5 someday.
Upvote
0
JPAZ said:
DPAF alone should make that academic: M5 has it, M3 doesn't. Done.
That + the integral EVF + far more useful control layout would imply that the M5 is indeed the droid you are looking for. Worth the upgrade, yeah?
- A
Upvote
0
JPAZ said:Maybe when the price comes down a bit.................
Wanna by my M!
Everyone is different, so my simple math of DPAF + integral EVF = much much better may not apply to you.
Just make sure you rent an M5 or give one a healthy hands-on test in a store (and take shots you can review at home) before you plunk your money down. Perhaps DPAF is not what you were missing with your M3, the size is actually too big for you, etc.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Finally! Canon releases a mirrorless crop camera that is worthy of the competition???
I think DPAF is objectively better, who would not want that feature? I get the integrated viewfinder a little, but those who don't want one are probably in the minority. Either way, there is the M1, M2, M3, M10 if no evf is your cup of tea.
Upvote
0
Luds34 said:
Sure, and I agree. I'm just saying you don't make a buying decision on the binary logic that DPAF -- as great as it is -- will solve 100% of your issues or concerns with EOS M.
For instance, the M5 is a hot mess if you want to vlog yourself with a stabilizer like Kai shows at 0:44 of the video. That's a non-starter for some folks. Further, the M5 costs more than twice as much as an M3! Again: rent/try one before you buy one, that's all.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
I was speaking more generally to your points about DPAF, etc. However, if you want to talk specifics, aka the M5 then I completely see/understand your points about price, etc. Heck the firmware/menu system being shared with the powershot series is a big hangup for others.
But back to the abstract, who wouldn't take DPAF over not having it?
Either way, the M5 at least on paper, starts to represent the kind of compact, mirrorless camera (from Canon) that enthusiasts can get behind. Of course I feel it is all a moot point until they can pack up that camera with a good lens lineup. Canon's getting there in this market, just need to give them a good 2 or 3 years yet.
Upvote
0
Luds34 said:
Agree, of course -- EOS M has been waiting for DPAF for quite some time and an integral EVF since the inception of the brand. So let's check those two boxes off and say 'at last'.
Next must be the glass. I think APS-C mirrorless lives and dies by being small, and we need more / higher quality / fully featured EF-M lenses: USM (or Nano USM) AF, FTM mechanical focusing, fast max aperture but not so quick as to get too big, etc. And I insist they must be native EF-M: adapters to EF make things too big, and EF-S lacks the (first party) primes.
Since EOS M already has a formidable (though non USM) 22mm f/2 pancake, I think the crop version of a 24 / 50 / 85 prime would round things out, say an EF-M 15mm f/2 USM, 30mm f/2 USM and 55mm f/2 USM would fit the bill nicely and pair well with a more fully featured rig like the M5.
- A
Upvote
0
ah, the usual whimpering and whining over Canon EF-M glass. Mimimimimi ... ;D 
i am *perfectly happy* with the current lineup. 22/2, 28/2.8, 11-22, 18-55, 55-200 are all fine. [15-45 is the only weak one, even for an ultra-compact kit zoom.]. 18-150 don't know yet. May take it, if/when offered in a worthwhile M5 kit, sometime 2017.
Only one EF-M lens is missing: a compact EF-M 85/2.4 STM IS or thereabouts for portraits, street, events, concerts, etc. ... optically as good as and pricewise similarly dirt cheap as the fabulous 22/2.0. Better mechanical properties or USM drive etc. not needed. Manual focusing ring & gear could be omitted as far as I am concerned. STM AF drive is brilliant for mirrorless DPAF and small glass.
i am *perfectly happy* with the current lineup. 22/2, 28/2.8, 11-22, 18-55, 55-200 are all fine. [15-45 is the only weak one, even for an ultra-compact kit zoom.]. 18-150 don't know yet. May take it, if/when offered in a worthwhile M5 kit, sometime 2017.
Only one EF-M lens is missing: a compact EF-M 85/2.4 STM IS or thereabouts for portraits, street, events, concerts, etc. ... optically as good as and pricewise similarly dirt cheap as the fabulous 22/2.0. Better mechanical properties or USM drive etc. not needed. Manual focusing ring & gear could be omitted as far as I am concerned. STM AF drive is brilliant for mirrorless DPAF and small glass.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:ah, the usual whimpering and whining over Canon EF-M glass. Mimimimimi ... ;D
i am *perfectly happy* with the current lineup.
One, you must not have spent time around young children as I don't think you know what whining is.
Two, ahhhh I should have known, you're completely happy with the EF-M lens lineup so therefore we all should be content. In fact Canon probably saw in a previous thread how happy you were with the lens lineup and therefore has stopped development and now considers the EF-M lineup complete.
Upvote
0
My guess is the vast majority of folks want two zoom lenses - a normal focal length and a telephoto. A few more folks might want a wider angle zoom. Zooms are so good nowadays, only a select few want primes. I used my last prime lens around 1995 and have never felt even the slightest urge to get another. Just my opinion, of course.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Luds34 said:AvTvM said:ah, the usual whimpering and whining over Canon EF-M glass. Mimimimimi ... ;D
i am *perfectly happy* with the current lineup.
One, you must not have spent time around young children as I don't think you know what whining is.
Two, ahhhh I should have known, you're completely happy with the EF-M lens lineup so therefore we all should be content. In fact Canon probably saw in a previous thread how happy you were with the lens lineup and therefore has stopped development and now considers the EF-M lineup complete.
I would like to see some additional primes to better round out the M glass line-up, but I'm pretty comfortable with my current M5 and kit:
(1) EF-M 15-45 - compact standard zoom
(2) EF-M 55-200 tele zoom
(3) EF-M 22/2 - super compact prime
(4*) EF 50 STM mounted on an M adapter
Using the 50 STM on an adaptor fills the portrait prime gap in the current lineup and its small/light enough even mounted on an adapter that I works well with a compact kit. I'd love to see Canon come out with a 55mm and 85mm EF-M prime at some point.
This 4 lens combination gives me 24mm-320mm full format equivalent focal length coverage with slow zooms and the two primes (35 and 80mm equivalent) for low light and option for shallow depth of field.
I haven't experimented with my better quality EF L lenses on the M5 yet, but plan to this weekend just to experiment. I don't expect its something I will do with any frequency, even with the M5's capable autofocus capability since the whole idea behind the M series is small size and limited weight.
My M5 + 15-45 kit arrived yesterday as did by EF-M 55-200. Limited time and terrible weather have prevented any serious photography yet, but I was able do to some shooting with it yesterday during my lunch hour. I like how it handles and am initially impressed with the EVF and auto focus system. I'll run it through more thorough testing shooting the kids this weekend and I'll report back next week.
Upvote
0
Fast primes [like f/1.4 or 1.2] or big fat f/2.8 zooms are just not going to happen in EF-M mount.
EF-M = APS-C image only.
Target: compact, light, cheap lenses with decent IQ, mainly zooms. Cover focal lengths and modest apertures and leverage short flange-distance.
Target achieved.
"EF-X" will definitely come for FF mirrorless. It will include multiple tiers of lenses, including "L"-type glass / fast primes, big fat expensive zooms ... just like EF which it will (eventually) replace.
It is clear to see, what's going to happen. Only the speed of transition is not fully known yet.
EF-M = APS-C image only.
Target: compact, light, cheap lenses with decent IQ, mainly zooms. Cover focal lengths and modest apertures and leverage short flange-distance.
Target achieved.
"EF-X" will definitely come for FF mirrorless. It will include multiple tiers of lenses, including "L"-type glass / fast primes, big fat expensive zooms ... just like EF which it will (eventually) replace.
It is clear to see, what's going to happen. Only the speed of transition is not fully known yet.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
Fuji has no trouble at all selling fast primes.
The 7D2, D500, etc. is not by any means a light camera.
APS-C and m43 can cover more needs than you are giving it credit for.
With Canon and Nikon, higher quality APS-C lens offerings are nerfed by design as they have something much nicer for you to move up to in FF. But Fuji, Olympus, etc. have higher end kit for non-FF lenses because it is their highest price point sensor (disregarding the brand new Fuji MF rig).
So, yes, APS-C can be cheap and light, and with battleships of options in the pricey FF space as the upmarket option, Canon and Nikon think that's the right way to go with APS-C. They are correct given their realities. But I think they're something refreshing to be considered with a Fuji, which is investing in APS-C with some decent lens offerings Canon and Nikon would never bother with.
- A
Upvote
0
as you noted, fuji went a different route. APS-C only plus now "pseudo MF" as top of the line. i cannot see canon going that way. i am convinced they'll stick to APS-C plus FF sensored cameras also in the mirrorless age. AS with DSLRs, APS-C will be a limited offering and FF will be the full universe with multiple tiers of lenses.
as stupid as i think canon often acts, on this one i see them on the right track. they may be able to pull off the transition to solid ste camera and may remaim #1. if they finally launch a decent enough FF MIL system - cameras and lenses - they will get a large share of their client base to putchase new cameras AND new native lenses, including expensive/"premium" = high margin items. so, canon may not be doomed (yet).
fuji on the other hand will remain a small niche player. not sure, for how long their business model will be sustainabke (if you ask me, "fuji is doomed").
as stupid as i think canon often acts, on this one i see them on the right track. they may be able to pull off the transition to solid ste camera and may remaim #1. if they finally launch a decent enough FF MIL system - cameras and lenses - they will get a large share of their client base to putchase new cameras AND new native lenses, including expensive/"premium" = high margin items. so, canon may not be doomed (yet).
fuji on the other hand will remain a small niche player. not sure, for how long their business model will be sustainabke (if you ask me, "fuji is doomed").
Upvote
0
Similar threads
