-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Seems like the Canon M5 is not really flagship spec
- Thread starter situman1
- Start date
Well, it's "flagship" compared to the other M cameras, no doubt about that
Well, if you look at it this way, when the E-M5 was released it became the Flagship olympus camera. Once the E-M1 appeared, it took the leading position. Until there is a better Canon ML camera, the M5 is currently their flagship mirrorless body.
yahoo2u
Leading Member
- Messages
- 715
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 479
you should join their engineering team.
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
Well, it's "flagship" compared to the other M cameras, no doubt about that
Advent1sam
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 9,089
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 4,212
Fuji are pointing the way for mirrorless systems right now!MartinIn my humble opinion, DSLR manufacturers, namely Canon, Nikon and Pentax, are not fully committed to mirrorless, simply because it will hurt sales of their DSLR cameras. They can't simply attach their existing lenses, and they will auto-shrink, to gain the size/weight advantages we all enjoy, they have to still use adapters, and new lens developments are not really interesting, or say, pro or L glass class.
I mean, DSLRs are not dying, or are going to be dying anytime soon, but they are loosing a considerable amount of users to MLC. And while they keep delaying ML development into a true competition, they'll keep loosing customers. The image quality gap is smaller with every iteration of sensors, and while they keep going up in resolution, definitively resolution is not everything, and many, me included, and I believe a lot of us too, value size and weight vs extreme resolution or image quality, that looks great at 100%, but once on a print or at the intended final resolution, the difference is not that huge as many tend to believe out of the box by just reading specs.
For me, MLC cameras need to have smaller sensors than 35mm, or they will be like a Sony Alpha system, on which once you put on a fast zoom, the size and weight difference disappears, and you are back into DSLR territory.
Yeah, I know DOF is not exactly the same, I won't go into another E thread, but you get the idea.
Now, Nikon do have a golden opportunity to start a new MLC system with a firm foot. If they really purchased Samsung's NX system, and they do introduce their new MLC system using the existing lenses and the same sensor size, then we will have a true competition, that might start shaking the MLC world. But if they go with a FF mirrorless, I believe it won't be as successful. They will compete with Sony, but our market niche will remain mostly unaffected.
To illustrate what I mean, and is interesting to note that, the difference between the 5D MkIV and the A7R2 is almost zero, and while the A7 is in fact slimmer than the big DSLR, the difference in the lens length is almost like it had an adapter to account for the flange distance of the mirror box.
--
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell
(Agreeing) In the case of the lens on the Sony it even looks like it is made for the dslr flange focal length of the Canon with an effective built in "adapter tube". In other words a simple body (container) redesign and not a compete back to basics lens re-design which just may have resulted in a more compact lens. However a basic makeover and repackaging might be a reasonably quick fix and a complete lens redesign from scratch might take years to produce and market. But in any effect the result is the same (and it will no doubt continue for some time to come)
Mentioning the Nikon-Samsung possibility. I think that Samsung made a major mistake with their NX mount - firstly its flange focal distance is too long to adapt Leica M bayonet lenses (the Leica LTM M39 lenses can just be made to fit). Secondly - I am not so sure but I think I noticed somewhere that there might be a problem with the lens mount and FF sensors.
--
Tom Caldwell
All the others are either falling behind or offering spoiler systems like this from Canon to hook buyers in.
Chris R-UK
Forum Pro
The interesting thing to me about the M5 to me is how it compares with the Canon DSLR line up.
In terms of specification it seems to sit between the SL1 and T6i/s and the 80D. It has better handling than the entry level Canon DSLRs, probably not far behind the 80D.
It is smaller than the SL1, Canon's smallest DSLR. It is way smaller than the 80D.
It is priced just below the 80D.
Its autofocus with EOS-M lenses is going to be at least as good as Canon's entry level DSLRs for single shot focusing, not so sure about continuous focusing. It is also likely to be very good with Canon EF and EF-S lenses. It is going to have way better AF in video than any of Canon's DSLRs without the dual pixel sensor.
The EOS-M lens line up, although very limited by the standards of other MILCs, is going to be adequate for most first time MILC/DSLR users, most of whom only ever use the kit lens anyway.
If I were still a serious Canon user I would certainly consider buying the M5 with the adapter for Canon DSLR lenses as a small second body for travel . The AF performance with EF/EF-S lenses would be adequate for most of my travel needs. That is the way I got into M4/3 - a smaller backup camera for travel.
I think that the M5 is a serious competitor for potential first time DSLR buyers looking for an entry level ILC and attracted by the Canon name. However, Canon hasn't priced it this way.
IMHO Canon has now launched a mirrorless camera that may well take sales away from their entry level DSLRs. Let's see what Nikon's new mirrorless offering looks like.
Interesting times!
--
Chris R
In terms of specification it seems to sit between the SL1 and T6i/s and the 80D. It has better handling than the entry level Canon DSLRs, probably not far behind the 80D.
It is smaller than the SL1, Canon's smallest DSLR. It is way smaller than the 80D.
It is priced just below the 80D.
Its autofocus with EOS-M lenses is going to be at least as good as Canon's entry level DSLRs for single shot focusing, not so sure about continuous focusing. It is also likely to be very good with Canon EF and EF-S lenses. It is going to have way better AF in video than any of Canon's DSLRs without the dual pixel sensor.
The EOS-M lens line up, although very limited by the standards of other MILCs, is going to be adequate for most first time MILC/DSLR users, most of whom only ever use the kit lens anyway.
If I were still a serious Canon user I would certainly consider buying the M5 with the adapter for Canon DSLR lenses as a small second body for travel . The AF performance with EF/EF-S lenses would be adequate for most of my travel needs. That is the way I got into M4/3 - a smaller backup camera for travel.
I think that the M5 is a serious competitor for potential first time DSLR buyers looking for an entry level ILC and attracted by the Canon name. However, Canon hasn't priced it this way.
IMHO Canon has now launched a mirrorless camera that may well take sales away from their entry level DSLRs. Let's see what Nikon's new mirrorless offering looks like.
Interesting times!
--
Chris R
Last edited:
Well, they are, but Panasonic and Olympus have been pointing in that direction far earlier than Fuji. And in my opinion, m43 still have the edge on the promise of compactness and lightness. The difference in size of the MFT sensor enables the ability of reduced size and weight like no other APS-C system can achieve.Fuji are pointing the way for mirrorless systems right now!MartinIn my humble opinion, DSLR manufacturers, namely Canon, Nikon and Pentax, are not fully committed to mirrorless, simply because it will hurt sales of their DSLR cameras. They can't simply attach their existing lenses, and they will auto-shrink, to gain the size/weight advantages we all enjoy, they have to still use adapters, and new lens developments are not really interesting, or say, pro or L glass class.
I mean, DSLRs are not dying, or are going to be dying anytime soon, but they are loosing a considerable amount of users to MLC. And while they keep delaying ML development into a true competition, they'll keep loosing customers. The image quality gap is smaller with every iteration of sensors, and while they keep going up in resolution, definitively resolution is not everything, and many, me included, and I believe a lot of us too, value size and weight vs extreme resolution or image quality, that looks great at 100%, but once on a print or at the intended final resolution, the difference is not that huge as many tend to believe out of the box by just reading specs.
For me, MLC cameras need to have smaller sensors than 35mm, or they will be like a Sony Alpha system, on which once you put on a fast zoom, the size and weight difference disappears, and you are back into DSLR territory.
Yeah, I know DOF is not exactly the same, I won't go into another E thread, but you get the idea.
Now, Nikon do have a golden opportunity to start a new MLC system with a firm foot. If they really purchased Samsung's NX system, and they do introduce their new MLC system using the existing lenses and the same sensor size, then we will have a true competition, that might start shaking the MLC world. But if they go with a FF mirrorless, I believe it won't be as successful. They will compete with Sony, but our market niche will remain mostly unaffected.
To illustrate what I mean, and is interesting to note that, the difference between the 5D MkIV and the A7R2 is almost zero, and while the A7 is in fact slimmer than the big DSLR, the difference in the lens length is almost like it had an adapter to account for the flange distance of the mirror box.
--
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell
(Agreeing) In the case of the lens on the Sony it even looks like it is made for the dslr flange focal length of the Canon with an effective built in "adapter tube". In other words a simple body (container) redesign and not a compete back to basics lens re-design which just may have resulted in a more compact lens. However a basic makeover and repackaging might be a reasonably quick fix and a complete lens redesign from scratch might take years to produce and market. But in any effect the result is the same (and it will no doubt continue for some time to come)
Mentioning the Nikon-Samsung possibility. I think that Samsung made a major mistake with their NX mount - firstly its flange focal distance is too long to adapt Leica M bayonet lenses (the Leica LTM M39 lenses can just be made to fit). Secondly - I am not so sure but I think I noticed somewhere that there might be a problem with the lens mount and FF sensors.
--
Tom Caldwell
All the others are either falling behind or offering spoiler systems like this from Canon to hook buyers in.
And again, to illustrate my point, an image from camerasize:
-
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell
Last edited:
addlightness
Veteran Member
[No message]
Jim in Hudson
Veteran Member
Canon, quite rightly, isn't going to develop all-new technologies just to come out with a new MILC. If they already had cameras with IBIS then it would have likely appeared in the M5, too. Very early on, both Canon and Nikon hitched their wagons to in-lens IS because they were first developing it for film cameras which have no practical means to achieve sensor stabilization. Also, 4K requires a lot of horsepower under the hood so it only makes sense that a company like Panasonic got there before others.
Last edited:
Jim Salvas
Veteran Member
Wait until they get the whole camel in the tent, with a good FF mirrorless, building on their experience with this line.
erichK
Veteran Member
snipped
Very well said, and well illustrated by the much-used photo, above. I've used Nikon as well as Olympus and, during the long wait for the E-5 was considering switching back - until I tried a friend's. Using F800 with 80-200 zoom for the kind of walking/hiking and occasional street shooting felt like trying to hand-hold a howitzer. Even the D200 with my old 24-120, though much lighter, still really got in the way. I've since tried the Sony, and the body almost small enough- until you put a lens on it.Now, Nikon do have a golden opportunity to start a new MLC system with a firm foot. If they really purchased Samsung's NX system, and they do introduce their new MLC system using the existing lenses and the same sensor size, then we will have a true competition, that might start shaking the MLC world. But if they go with a FF mirrorless, I believe it won't be as successful. They will compete with Sony, but our market niche will remain mostly unaffected.
To illustrate what I mean, and is interesting to note that, the difference between the 5D MkIV and the A7R2 is almost zero, and while the A7 is in fact slimmer than the big DSLR, the difference in the lens length is almost like it had an adapter to account for the flange distance of the mirror box.
A relative worked for Leitz, and I remember his bemused speculations, as the first big Nikon and Canon SLRs came out, over just how BIG the cameras and lenses using the format Oskar Barnak founded for a camera that could be carried about easily over a hundred years ago, and further developed into a compact interchangeable lens camera system could become. (He advised me to look at Olympus' new "M1" which they were then in naming disputes about - but also recognized 'in house' as the camera the Leicaflex should have been. With brief lapses I've kept using Olympus since 1973.)
This, too, is very relevant. A large part of the fascination with "full-frame" is the delusion that yet-higher resolution will transform mundane images into arresting photographs. That, too, was frustrating to those who made Leicas: the number of perfectly sharp, perfectly boring images wealthy camera owners tended to produce with them
--
erichK
saskatoon, canada
Photography is a small voice, at best, but sometimes one photograph, or a group of them, can lure our sense of awareness.
- W. Eugene Smith, Dec 30, 1918 to Oct 15, 1978.
underwater photos:
I agree with the 'almost like' assessment. However, it is almost like and not always real. Sony has been using that space quite well. The 24-70/2.8 GM monster, for instance, has elements almost to its rear end - no empty space adapter equivalent. The somewhat long 55mm/1.8 also had glass on its rear end, although its outside shape might have suggested the adapter idea.
The decision seems to have been to use this extra space for greater optical design freedom, and whether they succeeded in achieving higher results or lower costs or a combination of both is anyone's guess. But they surely make use of that space and fill it with glass more often than not.
jalywol
Forum Pro
And you have to consider the target market.
If I was just starting to look for a mirrorless camera for the first time, this would be a very appealing offering.
Canon has made a mirrorless camera with competent PDAF, a small body without losing controls, and really all the features that most of the consumers who would be looking at this would want to use. I think they learned from their earlier ventures and waited to see both what the competition was successful with and what their users wanted before they designed this.
This is the ideal "soccer mom" camera. Has the name, has the PDAF, has the kit lenses that will work for it, and is small.
I think it has the potential to take sales from M43, to be honest with you, as it is hard to fight the name and distribution. If they are able to develop a line of lenses that are good and not as big as most APSC lenses are, then they really will be in a good position in the marketplace.
In terms of M43; Olympus has positioned itself differently than this Canon; it goes for the more experienced/sophisticated user OR the users who want a particular style of camera. It has a unique niche in mirrorless space, although I can see the Canon affecting sales of the EM5II
Panasonic's mid range cameras are going to be the ones most affected by this camera (GX8, for instance, and maybe G80), as it is in the same price and size range, and offers more advanced PDAF functionality (DFD is fine, but good PDAF+CDAF is still better able to cope with some tracking situations). Panasonic has hedged its bets with its video capabilities, which I think was a very smart move, as is putting true IBIS into its cameras going forward. Sales of the GH5 will not be affected whatsoever by this Canon, as they are completely different animals with totally different target markets and video capabilities. Also, I think Panasonic was very, very smart to release the GX85 when it did, as it has better video capabilities and is cheaper than this Canon....
Unfortunately, I am starting to suspect that the GX8 may be the only one of its line, as its successor would be a hard sell in the same price range as this Canon.....And I think Panasonic really should consider keeping an updated GM5 in its line, as NOBODY out there has anything like it...
Ultimately, where this ends up will depend on what lenses Canon chooses to build out for the system, and whether or not they can keep the size of them down, and where they choose to expand the line (up or down) down the road.
-J
If I was just starting to look for a mirrorless camera for the first time, this would be a very appealing offering.
Canon has made a mirrorless camera with competent PDAF, a small body without losing controls, and really all the features that most of the consumers who would be looking at this would want to use. I think they learned from their earlier ventures and waited to see both what the competition was successful with and what their users wanted before they designed this.
This is the ideal "soccer mom" camera. Has the name, has the PDAF, has the kit lenses that will work for it, and is small.
I think it has the potential to take sales from M43, to be honest with you, as it is hard to fight the name and distribution. If they are able to develop a line of lenses that are good and not as big as most APSC lenses are, then they really will be in a good position in the marketplace.
In terms of M43; Olympus has positioned itself differently than this Canon; it goes for the more experienced/sophisticated user OR the users who want a particular style of camera. It has a unique niche in mirrorless space, although I can see the Canon affecting sales of the EM5II
Panasonic's mid range cameras are going to be the ones most affected by this camera (GX8, for instance, and maybe G80), as it is in the same price and size range, and offers more advanced PDAF functionality (DFD is fine, but good PDAF+CDAF is still better able to cope with some tracking situations). Panasonic has hedged its bets with its video capabilities, which I think was a very smart move, as is putting true IBIS into its cameras going forward. Sales of the GH5 will not be affected whatsoever by this Canon, as they are completely different animals with totally different target markets and video capabilities. Also, I think Panasonic was very, very smart to release the GX85 when it did, as it has better video capabilities and is cheaper than this Canon....
Unfortunately, I am starting to suspect that the GX8 may be the only one of its line, as its successor would be a hard sell in the same price range as this Canon.....And I think Panasonic really should consider keeping an updated GM5 in its line, as NOBODY out there has anything like it...
Ultimately, where this ends up will depend on what lenses Canon chooses to build out for the system, and whether or not they can keep the size of them down, and where they choose to expand the line (up or down) down the road.
-J
Last edited:
You show the m43 cameras with f2.8 lenses and then APS-C cameras with f2.8 lenses. Not a fair comparison. To make the lenses really equivalent the APS-C cameras should sport f4 lenses.Well, they are, but Panasonic and Olympus have been pointing in that direction far earlier than Fuji. And in my opinion, m43 still have the edge on the promise of compactness and lightness. The difference in size of the MFT sensor enables the ability of reduced size and weight like no other APS-C system can achieve.
And again, to illustrate my point, an image from camerasize:
-
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell
--
Jonathan
007peter
Forum Pro
Okay, as a former Canon EOS-M owner, I'm a little jaded by the expensive price tag. Based on M5 spec, I expect a $699 price tag and no more. At $1000, without 4K? What a joke.
dennis tennis
Veteran Member
Similar threads
- Locked
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum