rrcphoto said:EOS utility is a legacy product from canon (...)
.... that is delivered with every serious Canon camera so far.....
Legacy? Get real......
Upvote
0
rrcphoto said:EOS utility is a legacy product from canon (...)
AvTvM said: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.
privatebydesign said:cookestudios said:rwvaughn said: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.
rajdude said:Canon Rumors said:.........<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
AvTvM said:"... 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").
Adrianf said: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?
Adrianf said: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?
Adrianf said: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 said:Adrianf said: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.
Adrianf said: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?
Adrianf said: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....
Adrianf said: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?