More Canon EOS M5 Specifications Emerge

[d]

The M5 is too expensive for a backup camera. Also, it has features I don't need. So by now, I decided to buy the M10.

Depends what you paid for your main camera

 

[elcpu]

Thank you...

I pre-ordered an M5 from B&H today, delivery on or after November 30. I have an M3 but I am looking forward to the M5, seems like a big improvement. I would like to see what the reviews have to say about the 18-150 lens. Hopefully some will emerge soon.

18-150 ... looking forward to reading reviews and seeing real-life images captured with it, too. MTF charts look very decent and are somewhat better than EF-S 18-135. on the tele end (150mm) MTF looks slightly better than the (also good) EF-M 55-200 at 200mm - but the latter offers 50mm more reach. MTF charts also looks good in comparison to the very decent EF-M 18-55 on wide end (18mm).

it will also be interesting to learn at which focal lengths aperture on 18-150 will drop from f/3.5 to f/6.3.

i have both EF-M 55-200 and 18-55 and am very happy with their optical performance, but often do not carry along the tele-zoom - especially on extended hiking/mountaineering trips in the alps. i am tempted to get the 18-150 for those occasions and maybe sell 55-200. but i am not in a hurry, i'll wait and see if a good deal for M5 with 18-150 kit comes along eventually, maybe some future canon cashback deal ...

if i were to start from scratch with canon EOS-M system, i'd get M5+18-150 kit plus the excellent 11-22 and skip 55-200 and 18-55. not interested in 15-45, it is optically and mechanically lower grade. 22/2.0 is a really great tiny lens and i will not sell it, but unfortunately large M5 body size makes it non-pocketable even with pancake, as opposed to EOS M (1st gen) or M2.

This is good information AvTvM, thank you. I am glad I joined this forum...

I have the 55-200 as well and like it so far. I am planning on keeping it, even if I get the 18-150, just for the extra focal length, comes in handy for shooting birds on my back yard. I have taken some good pictures with it (for an amateur, I am no expert). I also like the 11-22 and the 22 pancake, very good as you said. I just purchased the M3 in August and I could still return it (within the window) but I bought it as a kit with the 18-55 and 55-200. If I purchase those lenses separately I would save $120, i.e., I get the M3 body for just $120 more and that seems worth it to me since I get to use it now and also afterwards as a second M body, lighter and more pocketable than the M5, especially with the 22 pancake.

However, I hope I did not make a mistake. I preordered the M5 with the 15-45 because the difference in price with that lens vs. just the M5 body was $120, maybe that is all the 15-45 is worth. I can cancel and just order the body only. How bad do you (or others) think the 15-45 is? One feature that appealed to me was the size and weight but the 22 pancake is even lighter and smaller and with great optics so I don't know whether to keep the 15-45 for $120 or not. Feedback appreciated, thanks... No hurry as I have time between now and the ship date.

 

[1kind]

Thank you...

I pre-ordered an M5 from B&H today, delivery on or after November 30. I have an M3 but I am looking forward to the M5, seems like a big improvement. I would like to see what the reviews have to say about the 18-150 lens. Hopefully some will emerge soon.

18-150 ... looking forward to reading reviews and seeing real-life images captured with it, too. MTF charts look very decent and are somewhat better than EF-S 18-135. on the tele end (150mm) MTF looks slightly better than the (also good) EF-M 55-200 at 200mm - but the latter offers 50mm more reach. MTF charts also looks good in comparison to the very decent EF-M 18-55 on wide end (18mm).

it will also be interesting to learn at which focal lengths aperture on 18-150 will drop from f/3.5 to f/6.3.

i have both EF-M 55-200 and 18-55 and am very happy with their optical performance, but often do not carry along the tele-zoom - especially on extended hiking/mountaineering trips in the alps. i am tempted to get the 18-150 for those occasions and maybe sell 55-200. but i am not in a hurry, i'll wait and see if a good deal for M5 with 18-150 kit comes along eventually, maybe some future canon cashback deal ...

if i were to start from scratch with canon EOS-M system, i'd get M5+18-150 kit plus the excellent 11-22 and skip 55-200 and 18-55. not interested in 15-45, it is optically and mechanically lower grade. 22/2.0 is a really great tiny lens and i will not sell it, but unfortunately large M5 body size makes it non-pocketable even with pancake, as opposed to EOS M (1st gen) or M2.

This is good information AvTvM, thank you. I am glad I joined this forum...

I have the 55-200 as well and like it so far. I am planning on keeping it, even if I get the 18-150, just for the extra focal length, comes in handy for shooting birds on my back yard. I have taken some good pictures with it (for an amateur, I am no expert). I also like the 11-22 and the 22 pancake, very good as you said. I just purchased the M3 in August and I could still return it (within the window) but I bought it as a kit with the 18-55 and 55-200. If I purchase those lenses separately I would save $120, i.e., I get the M3 body for just $120 more and that seems worth it to me since I get to use it now and also afterwards as a second M body, lighter and more pocketable than the M5, especially with the 22 pancake.

However, I hope I did not make a mistake. I preordered the M5 with the 15-45 because the difference in price with that lens vs. just the M5 body was $120, maybe that is all the 15-45 is worth. I can cancel and just order the body only. How bad do you (or others) think the 15-45 is? One feature that appealed to me was the size and weight but the 22 pancake is even lighter and smaller and with great optics so I don't know whether to keep the 15-45 for $120 or not. Feedback appreciated, thanks... No hurry as I have time between now and the ship date.

The 15-45 isn't a new lens so you'll find a bunch of reviews of it online. As for price, the lens itself retails for $300 is purchased separately.

 

[Crosswind]

The M5 is too expensive for a backup camera. Also, it has features I don't need. So by now, I decided to buy the M10.

Depends what you paid for your main camera

It's the 6D, and I have to save money for the 6D mkII (or eos M fullframe if it is ever going to happen) and a new Eizo photo monitor with Adobe RGB support (which are very good but expensive), so I don't want to buy a backup camera for over 1000 bucks. I also ordered the M3 besides the M10. Will see, which one serves me best. I don't need video, and I don't need fast AF (but accurate).

 

[neuroanatomist]

There is one problem with the M3 that I haven't seen written up anywhere. I need to research it a bit more but long exposures over 1 minute will take an equal amount of time to process. I shot a 3 minute exposure and it took about 3 minutes to write to the card. Not sure if a firmware upgrade or card change will help, but this was a huge problem on my last trip.

The reason for that extended processing time is that the camera is constantly reading data from the sensor and storing it up. When the exposure is complete it combines all that data to generate the final image. All that processing takes time, which is why it takes so long. The longer your exposure the more raw data and consequently the longer it takes to compile it all.

A long exposure on a digital camera is actually many exposures which are then all added up electronically. It is not like a film camera.

Ummmm...NO. Down to 33%, that's not just an F, it's an F-minus!

As explained prior to your reply, the issue is long exposure noise reduction, which takes a second exposure equal in duration to the first, but wiith the shutter closed.

There is one problem with the M3 that I haven't seen written up anywhere. I need to research it a bit more but long exposures over 1 minute will take an equal amount of time to process. I shot a 3 minute exposure and it took about 3 minutes to write to the card. Not sure if a firmware upgrade or card change will help, but this was a huge problem on my last trip.

That's because it is taking a dark frame to calculate noise. Lots of cameras do that, not just Canon. Not sure if you can turn it off.

You definitely can. It's called Long Exposure Noise Reduction in the menus. (Also described in the manual )

Yes, just checked and it was set to Auto. I didn't think that would impact shooting RAW only, but I guess it does. Thanks.

Yes, LENR is the only in-camera setting that actually affects the RAW image data (HTP affects the RAW metadata, tthe camera 'lies' about the ISO used for the shot).

With LENR, be aware that while the dark frame subtraction removes hot/stuck pixels and fixed/pattern noise, it actually adds random noise. At low ISO it's not really evident, but that's why Canon advises against using LENR at high ISO. Also, most RAW converters remove stuck/hot pixels automatically, so I'd recommend leaving it off.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If they did, they'd realize they could sell a lot more cameras by including certain features.

A few tens more? <G>

Sorry, but if you're saying they'd only sell a "few" more cameras by including 4K video, then totally disagree. Especially if they sold a full frame 4K video capable (not cropped) 5DIV, they'd sell hundreds of thousands more. Decisions not to include 4K video are based on fear of cannibalization of Cinema EOS products, not market research

Lol, right. You sure know this stuff better than Canon. You sould really contact them and tell them this stuff that's in your head, it's solid gold.

: : :

 

[elcpu]

1kind wrote: The 15-45 isn't a new lens so you'll find a bunch of reviews of it online. As for price, the lens itself retails for $300 is purchased separately.

Good suggestion, thanks. I will check the reviews and decide.

 

[AvTvM]

1kind wrote: The 15-45 isn't a new lens so you'll find a bunch of reviews of it online. As for price, the lens itself retails for $300 is purchased separately.

Good suggestion, thanks. I will check the reviews and decide.

in my estimate, (leaving aside focal range difference) the 15-45 is optically weaker than the 18-55 exactly proportionally to the difference in size.

18-55 is a straight A as far as kit lenses go. 15-45 is a C+ or so, both IQ and mechanically. tough call, depending on how you weight value focal range (more wide/more long), physical size and IQ.

 

[elcpu]

Good feedback, AvTvM. I may decline the 15-45, particularly since I already have the 11-22 and the 18-55. However, since I have time, I am going to read some reviews - I guess I'll have to decide if the 15-45 is worth $120 to me or not, that's pretty cheap but if I don't use the lens it would be just a waste. I appreciate the help.

 

[Don Haines]

There is one problem with the M3 that I haven't seen written up anywhere. I need to research it a bit more but long exposures over 1 minute will take an equal amount of time to process. I shot a 3 minute exposure and it took about 3 minutes to write to the card. Not sure if a firmware upgrade or card change will help, but this was a huge problem on my last trip.

The reason for that extended processing time is that the camera is constantly reading data from the sensor and storing it up. When the exposure is complete it combines all that data to generate the final image. All that processing takes time, which is why it takes so long. The longer your exposure the more raw data and consequently the longer it takes to compile it all.

A long exposure on a digital camera is actually many exposures which are then all added up electronically. It is not like a film camera.

Ummmm...NO. Down to 33%, that's not just an F, it's an F-minus!

As explained prior to your reply, the issue is long exposure noise reduction, which takes a second exposure equal in duration to the first, but wiith the shutter closed.

There is one problem with the M3 that I haven't seen written up anywhere. I need to research it a bit more but long exposures over 1 minute will take an equal amount of time to process. I shot a 3 minute exposure and it took about 3 minutes to write to the card. Not sure if a firmware upgrade or card change will help, but this was a huge problem on my last trip.

That's because it is taking a dark frame to calculate noise. Lots of cameras do that, not just Canon. Not sure if you can turn it off.

You definitely can. It's called Long Exposure Noise Reduction in the menus. (Also described in the manual )

Yes, just checked and it was set to Auto. I didn't think that would impact shooting RAW only, but I guess it does. Thanks.

Yes, LENR is the only in-camera setting that actually affects the RAW image data (HTP affects the RAW metadata, tthe camera 'lies' about the ISO used for the shot).

With LENR, be aware that while the dark frame subtraction removes hot/stuck pixels and fixed/pattern noise, it actually adds random noise. At low ISO it's not really evident, but that's why Canon advises against using LENR at high ISO. Also, most RAW converters remove stuck/hot pixels automatically, so I'd recommend leaving it off.

Many (most?) astrophotographers produce their final image by stacking multiple images (all shot with LENR turned off). To get better quality they also shoot a number of dark frames (the equivalent of the second part of the LENR cycle) and add the dark frames into the mixture in post-production. LENR is a great function, but those who it is targeted towards rapidly outgrow it.... it is the "green box" mode of astrophotography

 

[PHOTOPROROCKIES]

The M5 is too expensive for a backup camera. Also, it has features I don't need. So by now, I decided to buy the M10.

Depends what you paid for your main camera

It's the 6D, and I have to save money for the 6D mkII (or eos M fullframe if it is ever going to happen) and a new Eizo photo monitor with Adobe RGB support (which are very good but expensive), so I don't want to buy a backup camera for over 1000 bucks. I also ordered the M3 besides the M10. Will see, which one serves me best. I don't need video, and I don't need fast AF (but accurate).

So you ordered two cameras that add up to the price of the one better one?...

 

[ritholtz]

1kind wrote: The 15-45 isn't a new lens so you'll find a bunch of reviews of it online. As for price, the lens itself retails for $300 is purchased separately.

Good suggestion, thanks. I will check the reviews and decide.

in my estimate, (leaving aside focal range difference) the 15-45 is optically weaker than the 18-55 exactly proportionally to the difference in size.

18-55 is a straight A as far as kit lenses go. 15-45 is a C+ or so, both IQ and mechanically. tough call, depending on how you weight value focal range (more wide/more long), physical size and IQ.

Between (15-45,55-200 and 22mm) and (11-22,18-150 and 22mm), which combination covers more situations. 22mm will be nice low light walk around lens. Then zooms will give nice range during daylight. between 18-150mm and 55-200mm, 18-150mm looks much nicer range. Difference between 150mm and 200mm might not be that much.
We also need one one prime lens (85mm/100mm) for shooting indoor events for kids. One common f2.8 walkaround zoom. Sigma is selling 17-50mm f2.8 EF mount lens for dirt cheap which can be used with adapter.
I think, Sigma is going to release M version of their ubiquitous 17-50/70mm f2.8-f4 lens soon.

 

[d]

Between (15-45,55-200 and 22mm) and (11-22,18-150 and 22mm), which combination covers more situations. 22mm will be nice low light walk around lens. Then zooms will give nice range during daylight. between 18-150mm and 55-200mm, 18-150mm looks much nicer range. Difference between 150mm and 200mm might not be that much.
We also need one one prime lens (85mm/100mm) for shooting indoor events for kids. One common f2.8 walkaround zoom. Sigma is selling 17-50mm f2.8 EF mount lens for dirt cheap which can be used with adapter.
I think, Sigma is going to release M version of their ubiquitous 17-50/70mm f2.8-f4 lens soon.

Probably depends on how strong the 18-150mm is at 150mm. If it's a bit mushy at the long end like some lenses with large zoom ranges, I'd probably prefer to use the 55-200 for longer stuff.

 

[elcpu]

Between (15-45,55-200 and 22mm) and (11-22,18-150 and 22mm), which combination covers more situations. 22mm will be nice low light walk around lens. Then zooms will give nice range during daylight. between 18-150mm and 55-200mm, 18-150mm looks much nicer range. Difference between 150mm and 200mm might not be that much.
We also need one one prime lens (85mm/100mm) for shooting indoor events for kids. One common f2.8 walkaround zoom. Sigma is selling 17-50mm f2.8 EF mount lens for dirt cheap which can be used with adapter.
I think, Sigma is going to release M version of their ubiquitous 17-50/70mm f2.8-f4 lens soon.

Probably depends on how strong the 18-150mm is at 150mm. If it's a bit mushy at the long end like some lenses with large zoom ranges, I'd probably prefer to use the 55-200 for longer stuff.

That's what I am thinking as well but I'll hold off judgement until more reviews come out.

 

[AvTvM]

... between 18-150mm and 55-200mm, 18-150mm looks much nicer range. Difference between 150mm and 200mm might not be that much.

We also need one one prime lens (85mm/100mm) for shooting indoor events for kids.

One common f2.8 walkaround zoom. Sigma is selling 17-50mm f2.8 EF mount lens for dirt cheap which can be used with adapter. I think, Sigma is going to release M version of their ubiquitous 17-50/70mm f2.8-f4 lens soon.

Probably depends on how strong the 18-150mm is at 150mm. If it's a bit mushy at the long end like some lenses with large zoom ranges, I'd probably prefer to use the 55-200 for longer stuff.

interestingly, MTF chart for 18-150 looks a bit better on tele end (150) than on wide end (18mm):
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/ef-m/ef-m-18-150mm-f3-5-6-3-is-stm
for 55-200 MTF chart is not available at 150mm, but at 200mm tele end it looks a bit weaker:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55173504

f/2.8 standard zooms ... it will be difficult to produce such lenses even for aps-c image circle ... in line with typical ef-m lens size and optical quality. just look at size of the optically very good canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS ...

but with EOS M5 now announced and Canon's continued interest in EOS M system renewed, i also expect Sigma and many other 3rd party lensmakers to release a slew of lenses in EF-M mount. most of it will be the same scrap and manual focus sh*t already offered for sony E-mount etc ... coming from exotic fortune hunters like mitacon, samyang/walimex/rokinon, irix and the like ... but hopefully we'll also see a few really good, new optical formula lenses that leverage canon EF-M mount parameters to the max ... just like canon themselves do ... yielding very compact, decent lenses with great to excellent iq at highly affordable prices.

personally i am also hoping for a short tele along the lines of an EF-M 80/2.4 STM IS ... so Canon and or Sigma, Tamron, Tokina ... get to work!

@Canon: a great product idea would be a native, original canon speedbooster adapter for EF-lenses to EF-M system! make one for 299 and you will sell a good nkmber of them and keep your customers happy andcwithin your own ecosystem!

 

[pokerz]

... between 18-150mm and 55-200mm, 18-150mm looks much nicer range. Difference between 150mm and 200mm might not be that much.

We also need one one prime lens (85mm/100mm) for shooting indoor events for kids.

One common f2.8 walkaround zoom. Sigma is selling 17-50mm f2.8 EF mount lens for dirt cheap which can be used with adapter. I think, Sigma is going to release M version of their ubiquitous 17-50/70mm f2.8-f4 lens soon.

Probably depends on how strong the 18-150mm is at 150mm. If it's a bit mushy at the long end like some lenses with large zoom ranges, I'd probably prefer to use the 55-200 for longer stuff.

interestingly, MTF chart for 18-150 looks a bit better on tele end (150) than on wide end (18mm):
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/ef-m/ef-m-18-150mm-f3-5-6-3-is-stm
for 55-200 MTF chart is not available at 150mm, but at 200mm tele end it looks a bit weaker:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55173504

f/2.8 standard zooms ... it will be difficult to produce such lenses even for aps-c image circle ... in line with typical ef-m lens size and optical quality. just look at size of the optically very good canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS ...

but with EOS M5 now announced and Canon's continued interest in EOS M system renewed, i also expect Sigma and many other 3rd party lensmakers to release a slew of lenses in EF-M mount. most of it will be the same scrap and manual focus sh*t already offered for sony E-mount etc ... coming from exotic fortune hunters like mitacon, samyang/walimex/rokinon, irix and the like ... but hopefully we'll also see a few really good, new optical formula lenses that leverage canon EF-M mount parameters to the max ... just like canon themselves do ... yielding very compact, decent lenses with great to excellent iq at highly affordable prices.

personally i am also hoping for a short tele along the lines of an EF-M 80/2.4 STM IS ... so Canon and or Sigma, Tamron, Tokina ... get to work!

@Canon: a great product idea would be a native, original canon speedbooster adapter for EF-lenses to EF-M system! make one for 299 and you will sell a good nkmber of them and keep your customers happy andcwithin your own ecosystem!

Canon may introduce lens that do not cover entire sensor and digital correct it like G1x, G1xII, G7x, G7xII......
No one knows since they are corrected even in RAW.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-g1x-ii/G1X2hVFAWL_DCR.HTM

 

[AvTvM]

well, lets hope M5 really has EOS firmware and not Powershot cr*p inside.

 

[d]

well, lets hope M5 really has EOS firmware and not Powershot cr*p inside.

Are we not able to determine that from the videos released so far, showing all the menu items?

 

[MediaBaron]

So no GPS and no 3.5mm headphone out for video?

Hope they come out with a battery grip because running all these electronics will probably take a toll on battery life.

 

[Josh Denver]

The video guy:

My only hope is sharp, like really good 1080p. 80D has it but still, this is a smaller body. So...

If it has that, I'd sell my 60D (I can get around 400+ USD for it where I live) and import an M5 so 600$ total. Lower than a rebel price

This one would lose the reassuring size and usability of an SLR and the battery life but give me (in order of personal importance)

-As odd as it sounds - Electronic IS for all lenses. I shoot with LOTs of extremely sharp M42 lenses but I need a big expensive rig, or else my third film will be as shakey as my first two. Got lots of critisizm for it from the average joe viewer. So even non-perfect IS would satisfy my low grade Joes. Biggest feature for me. MIR-37mm 2.8 IS and Jupiter 135mm f2.8 IS YES PLEASE.

-Dual pixel AF for my 18-135mm 60D kit lens and 50mm 1.8 that I own. Again huge feature. I can forget focusing and rely on framing the scene. YES PLEAAASE. (Can't find this one along side great colours in any other camera so excited about the M5). This features also means something I didn't see mentioned, it allows you to give the camera to the photo guy on set to get behind the scenes. With manual only. I never ended up with one usabe clip)

-Throw out the LCD loup and shoot through the EVF. Or also use the loup as an angled tiltable EVF. Very cool having options.

-Focus peaking (+ evf) make focusing m42 a breath (I had that with ML peaking and Loup but this comes in, in a few mm window (evf)

-1080p 60p Actual good looking slowmotion for clients/viewers (not bad standard definition 60p with moire seas upscaled to 720p!)

-HOPEFULLY good-looking 1080p on large screens, otherwise all the rest is absolutely useless useless.

(Don't care about headphone jack, I record to the 100$ Zoom H1 which has 100x better preamps/sound quality than the 1DC and every photography camera on the market. So would never record in the M5 lousy 3.5mm input to care about monitoting the lousy audio!)

(Don't care about UHD as long as it has sharp 1080p. Itls still the standard for video and cinema and broadcast and will be for the next few years. And I never crop)


There are these cameras out there that I can jump ship to like the Panasonic's stabilized sensor cameras, but it's small non cinema standard sensor size, and bad at lowlight. Sony stabilized sensor cameras, but these are expensive! Fuji just cam out with an XT2 which is lovely, but again, no DPAF, hard colour matching with my Canons, and lenses. I am looking for an affordable uograde - Fuji has some awesome colour though on its own. NX1, the closest to what I need but thr company was shut off (what the hell?!). But also lacks good AF, which I would have given it up for thr nx1 proper camera body and big battery) It's all compromises. Yughhh.

Why not the Samsung NX1 perfect body, Samsung's GH4 batteries, Sony IBIS. Sony lens mount. Sony A7SII sensor. Canon Colour science and picture profiles. Canon DPAF. Canon C-Log. Canon XC10 XLRs add-on and 3.5mm jack audio quality. Canon XC10 codecs.

Wouldn't we all happy with that NX1 video beast for the next 5-8 years with that hybrid harmonic team up that gives us high end cinema/documentary/wedding/events/Lowlight/stock/commercial/everything video camera?


Yes and they'd have nothing to sell us for 5-8 years so...