Canon Mirrorless EOS M5

[curiosifly]

m4/3 had the mirrorless lead until recently. Now, competition has catched up in all departments and most have better IQ. Not to say that m4/3 IQ ins't good, in reality, it's very good. But m4/3 lag - has always lagged and will always lag , it's physics- beind APS-C for IQ. No problem for that.

But the bar is high now. m4/3 has lost it's AF and technological advantage. It has to be creative and up the ante in IQ to stay competitive.

Well, at least, that's my personal opinion ;-)

It would be very sad to see MFT starting to chase IQ to compete with APSC or even FF cameras. That's not the point of MFT. It should be smaller/lighter system with compromised but good enough (for its users) IQ. What are the most successful cameras nowadays? Cell phone cameras. And they didn't achieve this by competing IQ with FF cameras. On the other hand, there is no reason MFT should lose on AF front. It at least has the advantage of smaller lenses which should move faster mechanically. I would say MFT should first worry about its CAF in this ever competing market. My ideal MFT should be a small/light system with average/acceptable IQ but best AF.

 

[ahaslett]

What is going to be the effect of entry of Big Two into mirrorless world? Is this going to effect Olympus future? Your opinions please..

http://www.canonrumors.com/more-eos-m5-images-specifications/

--
'Om'

The system only has a handful of native lenses. If you want to use Canon's DSLR lenses, you have to use a bulky adapter, thus negating the size advantage of a mirrorless system.



And these Canon DSLR lenses can be mounted on MFT and other mirrorless systems as well, without the disadvantage of the poor native lens selection that the EOS M system has.

So, why buy into this system? MFT and Sony are much better buys IMO. MFT especially boasts a fully developed system of native lenses.

It'll sell well though because of the Canon name and the buying public doesn't know better.

;-)

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin

 

[pannumon]

why must a mirrorless system be small ?

Well it is the raison d'etre for mirrorless. What else did it have over DSLRs back in 2008? Mostly a lot fo downsides.

2008. That means Panasonic G1. Apart from the size and weight, compared to entry level / mid-range DSLRs, at least:

• Large (relative high resolution) EVF with 100% coverage
• EVF goodies (some kind of WYSIWYG, histogram, aperture* and shutter speed simulation; OVF had it benefits as well)
• Face detection
• AF possibility on 100% of the frame (and in most cases more focus points)
• Precise (and pretty fast) focusing (no back/front focus issues)
• Useful AF in live view
• Magnification in MF
• Fully articulating screen
• Silent focus (due to lenses)
• Software correction of lens aberrations

*Some DSRLs might have had it as well.

There must be others. These things should be mentioned in every review, where the target group includes people considering DSLRs. In the review by DPreview, they mention that AF of G1 is on par with entry-level DSLRs. S-AF was surprisingly good on G1.

In 2009 we also got usable AF in video, and at the time good 1080i 50/60fps (from 25/30fps sensor output). GH1 was the only sub-$5000 ILC that could do that (IIRC). At that time Canon 5D mk II could only do 18fps (IIRC): a firmware update allowed higher fps at some point).

Panasonic and Olympus had a clear understanding that mirrorless has several benefits over DSLRs. I did not mention that mirrorless cameras are simpler to produce, less easy to break, less need for in-factory calibration, etc.

It still feels that Canon has not understood the benefits of mirrorless.

 

[Jorginho]

With the Fuji XPro2, X-T2, X-A3 and now the EOS-M5, APS-C mirrorless is rising the bar.

The IQ gap with m4/3 is widening.

Fuji has a wonderful lens lineup, Canon not yet, but the have some little jewels that are cheap and optically awesome (22mm , 11-22mm).

The bar is high for m4/3. They'd better take their thumbs off and work on solutions to provide better IQ. If they succeed, m4/3 will remain the best mirrorless system. If not...

--
Cheers,
Frederic
http://www.azurphoto.com/

Not widening one bit. I compared the 2014 Nikon D5500 vs the 2014 GH4 and the 2016 D7200. D5500 is scoring exactly like the D7200. The latter having an insignificant (1/3 eV) advantage over the D5500.

Compared 80D with GX8 and the difference on all four measures are insignificant, which for noise is a surprse to me since this was one of Canon strenghth but there is less than 1/3 of a stop in it (whereas 2/3s becomes significant).

Canon upped their game but they are not better at all then these Nkons sensor wise.

Glass is another part of the equation. We can see that the lenssystem with the most development here are both mFTs and Sony FE. Fuji has great glass but is a bit slower to develop them. We can't day Panasonic and Olympus have invested in mediocrity here at all. Some lenses like the 12-60 and may be 25 mm 1.7 Panny are less than stellar, but 12 mm Leica, 100-400 Leica, 300 Oly, 1.2 25 mm Oly, etcetc are all very good and some superb lenses.

So from the lens side we are not gettng behind in IQ either.

When we look at video IQ....We are getting 4:2:2 8 bit 8G80) and 10 bit 9GH5) internal videoquality. That is puttin gthese cams again in a state-of-the-art position for their categories.

Finally: f a 1/60s HiRes mode becomes a reality with 10 shots in it, the tables are turned seriously. Everyone should take a close look at the current PenF and its results on the comparison part. Also informative here are the reviews of this feature on so many sites. There is one shortcoming: 1 second exposure is seriously hampering its usability. With 1/60 s (which remains to be seen of course since it is a rumour) would precisely change that part in a massive way. Not when you are an action shooter, also not a long focal lengths with even little movement of the subject. But in all other ways at FL say below 100 mm equivalent this feature might be usefull well probably give exciting oportunities for landscape, architecture, stilllife (already is great), streetlife and such shooting. And if the ISO s bumped from its current 1600 ISO to 12800 ISO than surely it must be great for astroshooting also (at least noctilucent clouds and aurora with some fast glass).

For a simple people like me who value IQ above all, don't do video, don't need blazing fast AF and don't care about technological features (HiRes, etc.), Fuji is the best mirrorless system right now.

And I don't speak about the new cameras, but about the X-T1, which has a better IQ than my former E-M1. And their lenses are much more enjoyable, but that's personal. Maybe one day I'll come back to m4/3 if they succed in rising IQ.

Where please is the better Fuji IQ? If I denoise the pics of my E-M5 MKI or my E-M1 to the extent Fuji does, they are more or less on a par noise-wise. Or I don't and am happy about the higher level of details. And of course i don't have to carry all those heavy APS-C lenses.

Having enjoyed m4/3 since 2009, and among it the E-M1 for 3 years, I'm not biased, and pretty able to compare. But well, everybody is free to think want they want.

What you have does not matter. what you say does.

Anyway, independently of your, mine or anybody personal preference, the bar is high for m4/3.

Well. I'd rather say that the bar is high for the rest of the mirrorless world. Fuji seem to have reached the C-AF performance of an Oly camera that was launched three years ago and you can be sure that Oly is going to up the ante again, next week. And feature and lens-wise, both Oly and Panny are so far ahead that the competition will need a yellow-flag phase for closing the gap.

m4/3 had the mirrorless lead until recently. Now, competition has catched up in all departments and most have better IQ. Not to say that m4/3 IQ ins't good, in reality, it's very good. But m4/3 lag - has always lagged and will always lag , it's physics- beind APS-C for IQ. No problem for that.

Nonsense. No lag. Whats next: a 1" sensor lags m43s because it has somewhat less IQ nowadays?

Canon again with its latest 80D and its really new sensor is 1/3 of a stop better. Etc.

But the bar is high now. m4/3 has lost it's AF and technological advantage. It has to be creative and up the ante in IQ to stay competitive.


http://www.azurphoto.com/

Also not true. When it all started it was behind APS-c DLSRs in AF (every way), EVF becoming very noisy and very laggy, a sensor that was no less than 21 points behind the then state of the art APS-c in the D90. More than a stop behind in noise, more than 2 stops behind in Dynamic range etc.

Sony A6300 is now the best APS-c...score 85 points. 10 points in front of GX8. The gap has closed here.

HiRes is nice indeed as long as it does deliver. Which remains to be seen.

What Panasonic and Oly have retained and in fact capitalised on is size of the lenses especially. I have a 24-70, 70-200 and 200-800 lens. All weathersealed, all very good to excellent IQ and built and they weigh combined 1,66 Kg, That is the strength. \

Lenses are not the strength of Sony A-series. It is of course not the strength of Samsung which has left us.

So when it comes to systems at roughly the same price we have FUji, Panasonic and Olympus. The others are down.

We can also look at the developped lenses to see how well things have developped and it is clear mFTs has done very very well and delivered may be even more than we could have expected over the 8 years it existed.

The next step in technology is one week away. Let's see what it gets us....

 

[webber15]

Xpro2 and 100-400 = 1.820

EM1 and 300 f4 = 1.767

Considering the larger sensor and both lenses put out 600mm approx,,not much of a weight advantage to m4/3 here!!

Dave...

 

[addlightness]

when I was a Canon dSLR shooter. Yes, 2007, 9 years ago.

 

[ttran88]

Canon has released more EOS M bodies than lenses. The fastest lens it has is an f2. They have a long ways to go. Hard to believe it but Canon has a lens problem.

Olympus colors are still better than Canon's and from what I heard these new 24mp sensors don't have the classic Canon skin tones that people seem to rave about.

Still nice to see Canon is trying different things and didn't leave the mount to die like Nikon 1.

 

[Jorginho]

Sorry Jorginho but ibis and hi-res is just to keep the feature people happy,,makes them think they are getting there money's worth...

I prefer the purity of no garbage features like flippy screens,,ibis,,hi-res and touchscreens...I am highly unlikely to feel different on this anytime soon...

Panny,,Oly,,Pentax and Sony need to have feature rich offerings to try to prise people from Canikon...

Fuji ploughs it's own path and clearly the market is there as Fuji's lens line up continues to expand,,quality glass all round and currently the only mirrorless (leica aside) with an OVF,,so is unique and a good differentiator from all the electrical goods that make up other mirrorless systems...

Dave...

Translaton: "I am a snob looking down at other cams and using double standards where I see fit".

Because I have to wonder what Fuji had in mind with that flippyscreen on the X-T2...probably not meant for Fuji users. Autofocus.....does Fuji actually use such a dumb feature?

 

[Jorginho]

Yes..we all thought: what a great EVF and what a nice manual focus with enlargement. And that AF....not fast but...accurate!

"Size!"
"What?"
"I said: size. Look at the size!"
"Oh well...an after thought."

So no: all the features you mention or most were not getting Panasonic anywhere. It was the size and weight and the promise of more of that sort of things to come. It wasn't exactly the technical advantages even though they were there.

 

[Jorginho]

Xpro2 and 100-400 = 1.820

EM1 and 300 f4 = 1.767

Considering the larger sensor and both lenses put out 600mm approx,,not much of a weight advantage to m4/3 here!!

Dave...

GM5 plus 35-100: 350 gram.
X-T2 and 100-400: 1767 gram

You want more apples and oranges to compare?

 

[pannumon]

Well, if the M5 turns out to be a major success - and I really expect it to be in consideration of the Canon users' loyalty, I think this will be very bery good for the entire MILC market.

Very interesting point. GX80 (project name) and M5 could actually change a lot. Mainly because M5 can get the attention to the mirrorless world, and GX80 would draw the buyers simply being a much better camera in a much better system. This could work out great for the Micro Four Thirds, and for the photographers.

So, I'm rather happy about the E-M5 and hope it's even better than the rumours claim.

I was just waiting for someone to spell E-M5 instead of M5! And we have not talked about BMWs yet! All of them are desirable, I guess...

 

[pannumon]

Yes..we all thought: what a great EVF and what a nice manual focus with enlargement. And that AF....not fast but...accurate!

"Size!"
"What?"
"I said: size. Look at the size!"
"Oh well...an after thought."

So no: all the features you mention or most were not getting Panasonic anywhere. It was the size and weight and the promise of more of that sort of things to come. It wasn't exactly the technical advantages even though they were there.

This time I totally disagree with you. On the other hand, people coming from DSLR world and people coming from P&S world (like me) probably thought about different things at the time. And to be honest, in 2009 I mostly thought about the great video that GH1 can deliver.

And really, at the time, G1 had really fast AF. It's still surprisingly good.

 

[Jorginho]

Yes..we all thought: what a great EVF and what a nice manual focus with enlargement. And that AF....not fast but...accurate!

"Size!"
"What?"
"I said: size. Look at the size!"
"Oh well...an after thought."

So no: all the features you mention or most were not getting Panasonic anywhere. It was the size and weight and the promise of more of that sort of things to come. It wasn't exactly the technical advantages even though they were there.

This time I totally disagree with you. On the other hand, people coming from DSLR world and people coming from P&S world (like me) probably thought about different things at the time. And to be honest, in 2009 I mostly thought about the great video that GH1 can deliver.

And really, at the time, G1 had really fast AF. It's still surprisingly good.

I have the G1 since dec 2008. It has no clue what to do with moving subjects. Its EVF is very noisy when lights go down, EVF is very laggy too, sensor was good to ISO800, 1600 being too much really. Etc. I came from a Canon DSLR and only went for the size difference and good enough IQ. The Canon was better in IQ and was usable at ISO1600.

But to each their own. I had the GH2 which was a lot better IQ wise, better EVF etc. But GH4 to my mind really closed the gap. Good C-AF. AF in -4 eV and superfast, Great batterylife finally (!), superb EVF with very little lag, much better IQ than my GH2. Yes. That for me was the breakthrough.

 

[yahoo2u]

Canon has released more EOS M bodies than lenses. The fastest lens it has is an f2. They have a long ways to go. Hard to believe it but Canon has a lens problem.

Olympus colors are still better than Canon's and from what I heard these new 24mp sensors don't have the classic Canon skin tones that people seem to rave about.

Still nice to see Canon is trying different things and didn't leave the mount to die like Nikon 1.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

It is small, it looks competent, AF with thumb when looking through the evf is hardly a new idea. It must be cheap(ish). They must sell a squillion on the Canon name alone.

The first EF-M with a viewfinder?

Few native EF-M lenses means that it will have to come with an adapter for EF lenses which means that it will be small no more.

On the other hand using EF lenses on M4/3 bodies might even become fashionable if only a Metabones adapter were not as expensive as the new Canon body on its own.

That is if Canon decides to slash its usual profit margin on front line camera bodies to much the same as the rest of the entry level mirrorless family enjoys.

Canon obviously thinks that the faux-dslr look wins friends.

Olympus will need another rabbit out of the hat and this time they will be competing on price as well. The GX85 was well judged and marketed at the right time by Panasonic but the GX8 may have hit the rocks before it made harbour.

However it will never be able to mount M4/3 lenses - so stop worrying about loss of dedicated M4/3 users - Canon must worry more about the loss of it own dslr body sales.

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[Jorginho]

Xpro2 and 100-400 = 1.820

EM1 and 300 f4 = 1.767

Considering the larger sensor and both lenses put out 600mm approx,,not much of a weight advantage to m4/3 here!!

Dave...

GM5 plus 35-100: 350 gram.
X-T2 and 100-400: 1767 gram

You want more apples and oranges to compare?

GH4 + 12-35 f2.8 + 35-100 f2.8 plus 100-400 f4 f6.3: 510+305+360+995= 2170 gram
Fuji X-T2 + 16-55 f2,8, 50-140 f2.8 and 100-400 f4.5-5.6: 507+655+955+1375= 3492 gram

Well...both span 24-800 mm, all of these are stabilised and weathersealed and expose exactly the same (well, almost..Fuji and ISO are another matter).

The Fuji weighs about 65% more...

 

[pannumon]

Yes..we all thought: what a great EVF and what a nice manual focus with enlargement. And that AF....not fast but...accurate!

"Size!"
"What?"
"I said: size. Look at the size!"
"Oh well...an after thought."

So no: all the features you mention or most were not getting Panasonic anywhere. It was the size and weight and the promise of more of that sort of things to come. It wasn't exactly the technical advantages even though they were there.

This time I totally disagree with you. On the other hand, people coming from DSLR world and people coming from P&S world (like me) probably thought about different things at the time. And to be honest, in 2009 I mostly thought about the great video that GH1 can deliver.

And really, at the time, G1 had really fast AF. It's still surprisingly good.

I have the G1 since dec 2008. It has no clue what to do with moving subjects.

I still believe Micro Four Thirds does not excel in this. S-AF has always been good (with Panasonic, not with Olympus E-P1), and C-AF still is not very good. But it's not like C-AF is perfect with DSLRs, either.

Its EVF is very noisy when lights go down,

Noisy image in EVF means noisy recorded image. Unless you are using a tripod, you are not going the get good images anyway in low light.

EVF is very laggy too, sensor was good to ISO800, 1600 being too much really. Etc. I came from a Canon DSLR and only went for the size difference and good enough IQ. The Canon was better in IQ and was usable at ISO1600.

I believe Canon 450D/500D was about half stops better compared to GH1 at ISO 100-800. Just like the sensor size would make you propose. G1 was arguably a bit worse.

But to each their own. I had the GH2 which was a lot better IQ wise, better EVF etc. But GH4 to my mind really closed the gap. Good C-AF. AF in -4 eV and superfast, Great batterylife finally (!), superb EVF with very little lag, much better IQ than my GH2. Yes. That for me was the breakthrough.

Interesting to hear.

I could not find many videos about G1 AF, but here is one:

Camera Labs review of G1 on YouTube

If you look the whole video, the size of the camera but also other functionality are mentioned as major characteristics of the camera.

Anyway, what I find important is not what you or I thought about the system, but what Panasonic/Olympus thought about it. And this is important in the context that what Canon is thinking about their M-system. It seems that they changing the view.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Body wise, it's not too bad in terms of specs

The lens offering is still meager, the kit zoom slowish

I'm sure some will jump on this just to experience APSC sized sensor

The system needs to mature a bit in order for it to compete in the mirrorless arena IMHO

At least it's more appealing than the Nikon 1 offering me think which is going nowhere at the moment

Maybe we'll see a surprise from Nikon to counteract the M5 at Photokina?

Cheers,

Reminds me of Fuji mirrorless - not much saving in overall size due to APS sensor and lens size.

Personally not a temptation to move away from M43 as it doesn't offer decent WR sealed body and lenses.

 

[averagejoe576]

Xpro2 and 100-400 = 1.820

EM1 and 300 f4 = 1.767

Considering the larger sensor and both lenses put out 600mm approx,,not much of a weight advantage to m4/3 here!!

Dave...

GM5 plus 35-100: 350 gram.
X-T2 and 100-400: 1767 gram

You want more apples and oranges to compare?

GH4 + 12-35 f2.8 + 35-100 f2.8 plus 100-400 f4 f6.3: 510+305+360+995= 2170 gram
Fuji X-T2 + 16-55 f2,8, 50-140 f2.8 and 100-400 f4.5-5.6: 507+655+955+1375= 3492 gram

Well...both span 24-800 mm, all of these are stabilised and weathersealed and expose exactly the same (well, almost..Fuji and ISO are another matter).

The Fuji weighs about 65% more...

Well if we are going to ignore equivalence...

RX10iii 25-600 f2.8-4: 1050 grams

...and you don't even have to swap lenses! How foolish we are all for lugging these behemoth m43 kits around.

 

[junk1]

I think all that's needed is a ring/spacer (that passes through the electrical signals) to use a lens meant for their DSLRs on a mirrorless having a shorter flange distance (or whatever the distance between lens and sensor is called - focal distance?).