Canon Mirrorless EOS M5

Pixnat2 · Sep 9, 2016

Marty4650 said:
Olympus and Panasonic need to take this seriously. And so does Sony and Fuji.

Taking the short term view, Sony FE, M4/3 and Fuji X still have a huge advantage in the MILC Wars, but do not underestimate Canon and Nikon's potential.

They haven't been competitive in the MILC market so far, but that was by choice. The day the two sleeping giants come out of their self induced coma, they will be a mighty force to reckon with.

Can anyone dispute any of these points?

They both have huge marketing muscle

They both have plenty of engineering and design talent

They both have the ability to execute well

They both have HUGE installed bases of very brand loyal customers

Building a great MILC System isn't rocket science, especially when you jump in last, after everyone else has done all the hard work for you. You just see what works best, and copy it. Do it better if you can, but even if you can only do it "just as well" you will still be rewarded due to those four points above.

Being the innovator isn't worth much today. The market always goes to who executes BEST, not to who did it first.

For the record, Canon didn't invent the camera. Toyota didn't invent the car. And Apple didn't invent the smartphone. In every case they were late arrivals, sometimes by decades. But all three became market leaders because they executed best.

I am very aware that M4/3 has the most complete lens catalog, Fuji has some outstanding lenses, and Sony has the unique advantage of having the only affordable full frame MILC system. Yes, they are affordable, because the only other full frame MILC camera is the Leica SL.

But if you take the long view (and you must do this if you believe MILC is here to stay, and not a passing fad) then you have to admit that Canon really CAN make great lenses, and should have no problem creating a few dozen good ones in the next several years. Their loyal fans will wait for them.

If Canon is smart, and I think they are, they will realize that their goal is to "sell cameras and lenses" and not just to "sell a lot of DSLRs only." They will build whatever customers want, not what they prefer to sell.

The truth is DSLR sales are in decline, and MILC sales are pretty much flat. Making it a bad business strategy to only produce the former and ignore the later. They need to be aggressively marketing BOTH.

A few short years ago DSLRs outsold MILC cameras five to one. Today DSLRs outsell MILC cameras two to one, but if current trends continue someday they might sell in equal numbers, and at some further time MILC could outsell DSLRs. They need to prepare for that possibility by having a strong presence in BOTH markets.

And before someone says "cannibalism" let me remind you that Apple KNEW that their iPhone would kill off their hugely successful iPod, but they released it anyway. They knew if they didn't kill the iPod, then someone else would. They knew they were better off if their iPods were replaced by their iPhones, rather than a competitor's smartphone.

This is called "forward thinking" and a sure sign of good management. And this is something most camera makers struggle with, even though most tech companies accept.

Excellent post! You put camera sales nicely in perspective.

I think the time has come for Canon to get serious and shake their "Rebel" world with the M line. And as you said, given the huge marketing power of Canon, all other mirrorless camera makers could worry.

About Nikon, I'm not so confident they have a smart management right now. They made a lot of mistakes that probably made them loose a share of their user base.

Anyway, the two giants are going to put a big pressure for other mirrorless makers in the following years. Interesting times ahead!

Jorginho · Sep 10, 2016

samtheman2014 said:
samtheman2014 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Nikon D7200 remains the best APS camera with a score of 87 though the overall score on DXO is the most useless part of their reviews . For myslef as a low ISO shooter the high base ISO and very poor shadow noise { in comparison } is the major issue. Hopefully the high res mode can be speeded up as this would be great news for me.

Well...first oall when we look a base ISO noise A6000 is exactly as good as A6300. Only DR is better (D7200 is not a mirrorless cam, but it has much better DR at base ISO for sure).

When we look at NEX6 or D7100 we see that at base ISO these score identical to GX8. 41,1 dB vs 41 dB vs (GX8) 40.8 dB. These are minute differences not nearly close enough to be significant.

Also we can look at A6300: While it scores 42.x at base ISO at ISO200 it is already significantly worse than GX8. If we look at the graph we can see that at about ISO125 or so (if we would set the A6300 at it) it is on par.

Another perspective is to compare it with GH4. We see that GH4 at base ISO when it comes to noise is significantly worse than GX8 (40.8 dB vs 39.7 dB).

When it comes to dynamic range at base ISO we see APS-c scoring 13.7 or so in mirrorless cams. D7200 at 14.1 or even a bit higher. So there is a significant difference. However: D7100 alreasdy scored 13.7 eV in 2011. Precisely as good as A6300. Higher up the ISO ladder things change a bit.

Also: there are some new FF cameras that score near 13 eV on DR at base ISO. No one complains here AFAIK.

So in the end at base ISO from a noise perspective mFTs have done better and the last 20 MP sensor is better than the previous 16 MP sensor according to DxO. When we look at the whole range of ISO's we see a significant difference emerging between latest APS-c and current mFTs. When it comes to DR mFTs by now should do better. We'll see.

samtheman2014 said:
samtheman2014 said:

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. \

Click to expand...

Firstly you have a 12-35mm, 35-100mm and 100-400mm it says so right on the lenses. A FF 24-70 or 70-200 at F/5.6 would be significantly smaller and lighter than the F/2.8 options I imagine that a FF 200-800 f8-12.6 would be possible though I cannot imagine many buyers.

We do not know how big they would be, sure they would be a lot smaller but something not there is not really something we can compare with.

samtheman2014 said:
samtheman2014 said:

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....

Click to expand...

--
The rose of all the world is not for me. I want for my part
Only the little white rose of Scotland
That smells sharp and sweet—and breaks the heart.
:Hugh MacDiarmid

6x9 · Sep 10, 2016

Pixnat2 said:
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...

DonParrot · Sep 10, 2016

Jorginho said:
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.

Well, whewn I purchased my G1 - wich turned out to have been a mistake - it was a decision between the G1 and the E 620. I didn't know a lot about photography but after three bridge cameras - Fuji 6900 Z (still miss it), Panny FZ30 and FZ50 - I wanted to up the ante. I always am ready to embrace new technologies and as I wanted to shoot my dogs in action I asked a lot of people in German photo forums if doing so would be possible with the G1, the answer was yes. Unfortunately this wasn't correct, but that's not the point. The fact that the G1 was slighly smaller than the E 620 didn't bother me at all.

And although i quickly switched to the E-30 it alweas was clear for me that i would switch back to µFT as soon as they would provide a competitive alternative. For me, it mainly was the new technology tha made me join the µFT fraternity. But I have to admit, that the lower weight os a welcome addition for my back problems.

Jorginho · Sep 10, 2016

There is very very little reason to suspect that current mirrorless cam manufacturers aren't at the top of their game already. They need to in this very competitive and not really growing market.

Canon has a huge investment at hand: manufacturing lenses for two systems and catering for a DSLR crowd AND now a mirrorless crowd...That is so risky in contrast with all the others in mirrorlessland...These did not have nearly the same amount of DSLR users so their abandonment was not so risky and theycould focus all their effort and money into mFT, X-series etc development.

Canon and Nikon are really in a bad situation because they postponed this move for years. They could have done it more gradual if they would have started seriously in 2010 or so...Now....Difficult.

Jorginho · Sep 10, 2016

6x9 said:
Pixnat2 said:

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/

Click to expand...

I second you. The Canon EF-M 22mm and 11-22mm are indeed awesome lenses. The 22mm was the reason I bought my EOS-M when it was released. It was a 2-lens kit (also with 18-55) and all together was costing much less than either Olympus 17/ F1.8 or Pentax 21 mm lenses. 22mm is not only much sharper than Olympus 17/ F1.8, but have almost zero distortion.

17 mm f1.8 is not known for its performance while it is not bad. Those Canon lenses are repeatedly touted as very good which is great for that price!

6x9 said:
I have multiple systems and I hate changing lenses. So, having a camera dedicated to one lens is fine for me.

EOS-M cameras are incredibly small - not really larger than MFT.

Not really having an EVF to cope with either..

6x9 said:
The 18 Mp sensor in my EOS-M is very good. Raw files from EOS-M gives more room for highlights correction compared to my Olympus cameras (E-M5, E-M10, E-P5).

Seems to be you, since the DR is more limited than those Oly's.

6x9 said:
Also, video in Canon is better than that of my Oly cameras, and it does not have weird jumps in exposure.The touch screen of EOS-M is impressive. You can zoom in / out ans scroll pretty much as with you phone. Initially I did like this feature, but got used to it and really love it now.

Panasonic camera's are also part of the mFyt system. Have to agree that Oly is really sucking bad with its menusystem though.

6x9 said:
Well, EOS-M AF is sluggish - no comparison to Olympus or Panasonic. But this can be improved in new models. With phase detection sensors it will be a very interesting camera.

Oh well....a lot more needs to be changed. A good EVF, two very good lenses sounds so 2009 to me. They can do it of course but they need to become serious. Also their 80D sensor is somewhat better than all mFTs currently and it is well...just a very fine sensor. So let's see what they will do! I hope it will be really good.

6x9 said:
No 4k video - definitely not in the modern trend. But many people do not really care much about 4k video.

But this to me sounds like a slippery slope of saying first this and then that. First video is better than Oly (which it likely is) but when it does not do 4K you imply "may be no one needs it". I don't think you mean it that way to be clear, but personally I try to be carefull with double standards.

6x9 said:
--
- 6x9 -

Messier Object · Sep 10, 2016

Jorginho said:
There is very very little reason to suspect that current mirrorless cam manufacturers aren't at the top of their game already. They need to in this very competitive and not really growing market.

Canon has a huge investment at hand: manufacturing lenses for two systems and catering for a DSLR crowd AND now a mirrorless crowd...That is so risky in contrast with all the others in mirrorlessland...These did not have nearly the same amount of DSLR users so their abandonment was not so risky and theycould focus all their effort and money into mFT, X-series etc development.

Canon and Nikon are really in a bad situation because they postponed this move for years. They could have done it more gradual if they would have started seriously in 2010 or so...Now....Difficult.

A pity that they don't have a plan or anyone to advise them. Their DSLR customers will be horrified if they find out that by now they could have been shooting mirrorless.

Peter

Wu Jiaqiu · Sep 10, 2016

Messier Object said:
Jorginho said:

There is very very little reason to suspect that current mirrorless cam manufacturers aren't at the top of their game already. They need to in this very competitive and not really growing market.

Canon has a huge investment at hand: manufacturing lenses for two systems and catering for a DSLR crowd AND now a mirrorless crowd...That is so risky in contrast with all the others in mirrorlessland...These did not have nearly the same amount of DSLR users so their abandonment was not so risky and theycould focus all their effort and money into mFT, X-series etc development.

Canon and Nikon are really in a bad situation because they postponed this move for years. They could have done it more gradual if they would have started seriously in 2010 or so...Now....Difficult.

Click to expand...

A pity that they don't have a plan or anyone to advise them. Their DSLR customers will be horrified if they find out that by now they could have been shooting mirrorless.

Peter

not everyone wants a mirrorless and not everyone wants a Dslr, it's the good that the whole market is serviced with different options for individual preferences

6x9 · Sep 10, 2016

DonParrot said:
Pixnat2 said:

Jorginho said:

Pixnat2 said:

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...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

petreluk · Sep 10, 2016

Jorginho said:
There is very very little reason to suspect that current mirrorless cam manufacturers aren't at the top of their game already. They need to in this very competitive and not really growing market.

Canon has a huge investment at hand: manufacturing lenses for two systems and catering for a DSLR crowd AND now a mirrorless crowd...That is so risky in contrast with all the others in mirrorlessland...These did not have nearly the same amount of DSLR users so their abandonment was not so risky and theycould focus all their effort and money into mFT, X-series etc development.

Canon and Nikon are really in a bad situation because they postponed this move for years. They could have done it more gradual if they would have started seriously in 2010 or so...Now....Difficult.

Canon are not in a bad position at all. The reason is that they could dominate the mirrorless sector in terms of sheer numbers without producing a single pro-quality best of anything. They only need to produce what is appropriate to the goals of the business. If the goal of their mirrorless operation is to hoover up sales of lower- and mid-tier crop-format users and first-timers, for example, then they need only produce what is appropriate to that market. Later on, Canon could well decide to start moving up the market but by that stage they will have heaps of financial and customer feedback to guide them - and, of course, a huge and established use base to sell into. This is a strong position. The high end always gets 90 per cent of the publicity and the glamour, but successful empires embrace the many not the lucky few.

There is probably a back-end aspect here too. There's little point in having cameras with few or no moving parts - which is what MILCS are, in essence - until fully automated assembly lines have got good enough produce them very cheaply and very reliably. Perhaps that point has now been reached and so the investment makes sense.

Who knows, of course. That's enough armchair warriorship for today.

Okapi001 · Sep 10, 2016

6x9 said:
I had Fujifilm X-Pro1. No doubt that it has better image quality, especially in low light. One step or so over any of my three MFT Olympus cameras (E-M5, E-M10, E-P5). However, if you use non-stabilized primes with Fuji you will lose the low light bebefits.

In fact, you could lose it even with the stabilised lenses, because Olympus' 5-axis IBIS is at least 1 stop more efficient than Fuji's OIS.

Of course, this applies only for static or sufficiently slow moving subjects, where you can use slow shutter speeds.

Jim Salvas · Sep 10, 2016

Olympus has always been a small, but nimble player. It survived in the old SLR competition by innovating with the small and successful OM-1. Though the smaller form was widely imitated by all, including Canon, the OM line remained a good seller for years.

Recently, Olympus has been innovating not only in its cameras, but in its software, which they frequently update. My E-M1 is not the camera I originally bought and more keeps coming along. I expect this to continue. For now, I prefer being with with a small innovator, rather than a big and slow market leader.

Meanwhile, other than a few marginal specs, Canon seems to be delivering its version of a 2013 E-M1. It will be interesting to compare it to the 2016 version due to be announced on the 19th.

Tommi K1 · Sep 10, 2016

Someone already stated years ago that once a Canon and Nikon wants to jump mirrorless design, they simply remove the mirror and add huge sharp EVF and be done with it. Same bodies as is but just new features more in digital side.

And that is what it takes from canon and nikon as they canr make small bodies as users wants a same body as so far. And big lenses requires big bodies and that is what canon and nikon has, a lot big lenses.

Suddenly everyhing would change.

And partial reasons get m4/3 is gone as mirrorless technology is the main attraction and benefit, not size and weight.

If m4/3 would be a DSLR amd just happen to be as small even with the mirror,I bet that m4/3 would be gone as size and weight wouldn't be accepted compromise for image quality.

But with mirrorless tech keeper rate increases, quality increases and photography becomes fun, it is win win for m4/3.

averagejoe576 · Sep 10, 2016

Jorginho said:
averagejoe576 said:

Jorginho said:

Jorginho said:

webber15 said:

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...

Click to expand...

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

You want more apples and oranges to compare?

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

Well if we are going to ignore equivalence...

Click to expand...

In order to get something comparable we have to. The point was that mFTs weighs less. I kept equivalence in mind as much as possible because I could have chosen the 100-300 mm f4 to f5.6 Panny. And then we would have ended up with 1670 grams...

Jorginho said:

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.

Click to expand...

Apparantly that is your point, but no one over here said that carrying any weight is somehow dumb. That is ip to the person. If you want better DOF control (shallower) and don't care about 65% more weight the Fuji seems the better choice. At least from that perspective. For others the mFTs might be better. When we look at the A7II with an F4 lens setup that might be a nice combo too.

My post was sarcastic. Its pointless directly compare lenses of same f# across systems. If you want to compare m43 to Fuji you need to compare equiclant apertaures, e.g. f2.8 to f4, which is much closer in size/weight/price/DoF/low-light performance.

Terry Breedlove · Sep 10, 2016

Canon and Nikon can both make a mirrorless camera as small as the Sony A7 and Olympus EM-1 and with small little primes if they so choose. They could also make an adapter so the full line of current FF mount lenses work if they so choose. It really is just up to them to decide to do it.

Tommi K1 · Sep 10, 2016

Marty4650 said:
Being the innovator isn't worth much today. The market always goes to who executes BEST, not to who did it first.

Marty4650 said:
For the record, Canon didn't invent the camera. Toyota didn't invent the car. And Apple didn't invent the smartphone. In every case they were late arrivals, sometimes by decades. But all three became market leaders because they executed best.

Iphone was terrible before iphone 3GS. Nokia had far better features and execution than Apple but no vision and market brand.

Microsoft Windows phone was/is better than Android and iOS (i am huge Android fan but i know usability) but didn't have market brand and so on apps.

Android is still a mess because users from other OEM can't get a vanilla experience And lacks updates.

Who makes things first well enough wins, not who is best.

Marty4650 said:
I am very aware that M4/3 has the most complete lens catalog, Fuji has some outstanding lenses, and Sony has the unique advantage of having the only affordable full frame MILC system. Yes, they are affordable, because the only other full frame MILC camera is the Leica SL.

Here it doesn't matter how many lenses you can get, but can you get what you need. And as m4/3 lenses cover already almost all but special like tilt and shift, it is better as you have less bad ones or choices.

Marty4650 said:
If Canon is smart, and I think they are, they will realize that their goal is to "sell cameras and lenses" and not just to "sell a lot of DSLRs only." They will build whatever customers want, not what they prefer to sell.

They are, they wait when they need to push me tech a lot and quickly when it is advanced enough. Like now we have very best EVF in Leica SL and it isn't good enough for OVF users by details. So next 1-2 gen and Canon comes to mirrorless with 2-3x better as than dual pixel gives now.

Marty4650 said:
The truth is DSLR sales are in decline, and MILC sales are pretty much flat. Making it a bad business strategy to only produce the former and ignore the later. They need to be aggressively marketing BOTH.

A few short years ago DSLRs outsold MILC cameras five to one. Today DSLRs outsell MILC cameras two to one, but if current trends continue someday they might sell in equal numbers, and at some further time MILC could outsell DSLRs. They need to prepare for that possibility by having a strong presence in BOTH markets.

And before someone says "cannibalism" let me remind you that Apple KNEW that their iPhone would kill off their hugely successful iPod, but they released it anyway. They knew if they didn't kill the iPod, then someone else would. They knew they were better off if their iPods were replaced by their iPhones, rather than a competitor's smartphone.

This is called "forward thinking" and a sure sign of good management. And this is something most camera makers struggle with, even though most tech companies accept.

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

6x9 · Sep 10, 2016

Jorginho said:
6x9 said:

No 4k video - definitely not in the modern trend. But many people do not really care much about 4k video.

Click to expand...

But this to me sounds like a slippery slope of saying first this and then that. First video is better than Oly (which it likely is) but when it does not do 4K you imply "may be no one needs it". I don't think you mean it that way to be clear, but personally I try to be carefull with double standards.

Jorginho said:

--
- 6x9 -

Click to expand...

No double standards there. And I did not say "may be no one needs it".

OK, I will say for myself. I would still be happy with Full HD for another year or two. So I compare apples against apples (1080 vs. 1080).

The problem is not only in quality of image, but also in behavior of AF and exposure adjustment in video mode. I heard that this was fixed in latest Oly cameras and SW release for E-M1.

--
- 6x9 -

Marty4650 · Sep 10, 2016

Tommi K1 said:
Someone already stated years ago that once a Canon and Nikon wants to jump mirrorless design, they simply remove the mirror and add huge sharp EVF and be done with it. Same bodies as is but just new features more in digital side.

And that is what it takes from canon and nikon as they canr make small bodies as users wants a same body as so far. And big lenses requires big bodies and that is what canon and nikon has, a lot big lenses.

Very true.

And this is precisely what Sigma has done with their mirrorless sd Quattro cameras. They removed the mirror box but didn't take advantage of this to make their camera thinner. Instead, they added a "permanent spacer" to the body so they could continue to use Sigma SA lenses, and then they would not have to create any new Sigma lenses for their new system.

Would Canon follow the same path as Sigma did?

They might, but I doubt they would.

They created a new lens system for their EOS M cameras, and any future MILC system would build on that. They are better off selling you another 18-55mm lens than having you use the 18-55mm DX lens you already own.

Of course, there will always be adapters for those who don't care about lens weight or size and who already own those lenses.

But exactly what is the benefit of MILC if you don't end up with smaller lenses?

Member said:
Suddenly everyhing would change.

And partial reasons get m4/3 is gone as mirrorless technology is the main attraction and benefit, not size and weight.

If m4/3 would be a DSLR amd just happen to be as small even with the mirror,I bet that m4/3 would be gone as size and weight wouldn't be accepted compromise for image quality.

But with mirrorless tech keeper rate increases, quality increases and photography becomes fun, it is win win for m4/3.

--
Marty

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132

Favorites

Explore this photo album by Marty4650 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

daddyo · Sep 10, 2016

I was under the impression that Canon and Nikon had already entered the world of mirrorless cameras several years back -- and it did not negatively affect Olympus nor Panasonic.

This new Canon might be a very nice camera, but it will still be saddled with large, heavy telephoto lenses compared to Micro Four Thirds.

In regard to all the incessant whining about lagging m4/3's IQ -- in my opinion, it is coming mostly from people who don't know how to use their cameras. It's like BMW owners whining because Bugatti has a car that will out accelerate and has a higher top speed than 'Beamers' are capable of -- even though the Bugatti costs 4 times as much, and there's a speed limit that neither needs to be driven above.

I shot the image below this morning, I don't need better IQ, and I know that I could get beautiful results at any print size I want -- so why would I fret because Canon is introducing a new mirrorless system that is going to be bulkier and heavier (body and lenses) than my Olympus m4/3's System.

I honestly don't care, and see the Canon move as a potential boon to m4/3's, because it will introduce even more buyers to the advantages of mirrorless cameras. Once they get tired of carting around big heavy lenses, they just might move to m4/3's.

--
God Bless,
Greg
www.imagismphotos.com
www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com
www.pbase.com/daddyo

Tom Caldwell · Sep 10, 2016

I am probably one of the few guys on this forum that actually has one of those great big white lenses in the form of a 400mm f2.8. This is a crazy good lens at a crazy size. But what do you get with such a lens that a smaller zoom and M4/3 cannot supply?

Maybe a portrait shot of an actor on stage from the back of the hall where the details of an eye iris can be seen or a thorn on the stem of a rose. And this is with an ancient 12MP Canon 5D body.

As a joke I tried a GM1 on this gigantasaurus with metabones adapter. It worked! - quickly achieving accurate AF (with the GM battery no less).

Some things are notable: that such a large lens can be driven by such a small camera body; that such large lens is a tripod only exercise and the size of a camera body on a gimbal head is quite irrelevant; "wasting" so much of the glass on a mere 4/3 sensor seems foolish.

But I have regularly used this same lens on an equally large aps-c sensored dslr body to no apparent ill effect. But I gave up on rolling over dslr bodies years ago. Waiting for a more affordable ML body. Here is one and it certainly has more MP and a more modern sensor than I have been used to having.

If this camera is a capable one then maybe the demand might embarrass Canon by its very excess.

I am sure that Canon has a minimum and maximum comfortable range of sales demands and if it roars past the maximum comfort level then the dslr is surely dead and "pricey" FF pro models will surely quickly appear.

A doomsday scenario might see the death of the dslr as a type in just a few years with Nikon the shag on a rock steadfastly "doing a Leica" wiht stiff upper lip.

This guy with a great stock of EF lenses would seem to be a good candidate for a camera such as the M5. So after a while to digest "why did you take this long?" I am warming to the idea.

Next opportunity I get for an outing with the 400/2.8 I am bound to try a M4/3 body on it for some serious work.

Canon Mirrorless EOS M5

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Wu Jiaqiu

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Tommi K1

Guest

Leading Member

Senior Member

Tommi K1

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Community Leader

Keyboard shortcuts