Reading mode: Light Dark

M5 Pricing

Go to last post
ZedDoctor said:
MikeJ9116 said:
ZedDoctor said:
A6500 is $1,400. X-T2 is $1599, GH5 is $2,000, OM-D Eii is $2,000. Canon is no where near priced like these.
Click to expand...
The M5 is no where near the capabilities of these cameras or has the native lens catalog. As I referenced earlier, the A6500 offers a lot for the $300-$400 additional cost. It seems that Canon will never offer a camera like the A6500 as it would take too big a bite out of their DSLR line. The M5 is basically a $700-$800 camera. It should be priced like a T7i, IMO.
Click to expand...
Nice job cutting out those quotes ;) But after all, you did say top line competition.. and those cameras are top line mirror less cameras...
Click to expand...
I cut out the text as the post gets ridiculously long after a while.
ZedDoctor said:
So 4K, an unnecessary amount of AF points, and 2 more FPS is worth $400, even though you're giving up Touch-to-Drag AF, Dual-Pixel AF, better menus, a fully capable touch screen compared to a crippled touchscreen, and better battery life?
Click to expand...
I never said the A6500 was perfect. How long will it be before Canon gives us an M camera with 5-axis IBIS and 4k video? 4K video might show up in the next iteration but IBIS might not happen in my lifetime (I have a good 20-30 years left). The IBIS in the A6500 is worth most of the $300-$400 extra cost and makes up for a lot of other shortcomings.
ZedDoctor said:
ZedDoctor said:
ZedDoctor said:
You do realize that IF an SL2 is released, it's most likely going to be as or more expensive than the M5. Considering that the SL1 started at $1000, it will likely be more.

And then we'll have people complain that again the body is too overpriced for what they want to pay, and we will be having the same conversation.
Click to expand...
The SL1 was not priced high when it appeared. It was at the lower end of the Rebel line. I would expect the SL2 to be similarly priced.
Click to expand...
If you look at what if offered for the price, compared to what else was selling against it, it was expensive for a crippled rebel camera.
Click to expand...
It was a well reviewed and well received camera. It still has a cult following. It was actually ahead of its time as the market has gone in the direct of small, light weight bodies. I have no doubt a decent SL2 with on-chip ADC, 24mp, decent AF etc. will be a runaway hit. The only reason Canon might not make it is it would put a major dent in M5/M6 sales. But then Canon might not care about that.
ZedDoctor said:
ZedDoctor said:
ZedDoctor said:
It's not really adopting a new system..
Click to expand...
If I currently have none of the gear, then I consider it as adopting a new system.
Click to expand...
But you already have Canon glass and an M3....
Click to expand...
I was referring to moving to Sony, Fuji, Oly etc.
 
MikeJ9116 said:
ZedDoctor said:
MikeJ9116 said:
ZedDoctor said:
A6500 is $1,400. X-T2 is $1599, GH5 is $2,000, OM-D Eii is $2,000. Canon is no where near priced like these.
Click to expand...
The M5 is no where near the capabilities of these cameras or has the native lens catalog. As I referenced earlier, the A6500 offers a lot for the $300-$400 additional cost. It seems that Canon will never offer a camera like the A6500 as it would take too big a bite out of their DSLR line. The M5 is basically a $700-$800 camera. It should be priced like a T7i, IMO.
Click to expand...
Nice job cutting out those quotes ;) But after all, you did say top line competition.. and those cameras are top line mirror less cameras...
Click to expand...
I cut out the text as the post gets ridiculously long after a while.
MikeJ9116 said:
So 4K, an unnecessary amount of AF points, and 2 more FPS is worth $400, even though you're giving up Touch-to-Drag AF, Dual-Pixel AF, better menus, a fully capable touch screen compared to a crippled touchscreen, and better battery life?
Click to expand...
I never said the A6500 was perfect. How long will it be before Canon gives us an M camera with 5-axis IBIS and 4k video? 4K video might show up in the next iteration but IBIS might not happen in my lifetime (I have a good 20-30 years left). The IBIS in the A6500 is worth most of the $300-$400 extra cost and makes up for a lot of other shortcomings.
Click to expand...
But the EOS M5 has IBS in it. Along with the IBS in its lenses..
MikeJ9116 said:
MikeJ9116 said:
MikeJ9116 said:
MikeJ9116 said:
You do realize that IF an SL2 is released, it's most likely going to be as or more expensive than the M5. Considering that the SL1 started at $1000, it will likely be more.

And then we'll have people complain that again the body is too overpriced for what they want to pay, and we will be having the same conversation.
Click to expand...
The SL1 was not priced high when it appeared. It was at the lower end of the Rebel line. I would expect the SL2 to be similarly priced.
Click to expand...
If you look at what if offered for the price, compared to what else was selling against it, it was expensive for a crippled rebel camera.
Click to expand...
It was a well reviewed and well received camera. It still has a cult following. It was actually ahead of its time as the market has gone in the direct of small, light weight bodies. I have no doubt a decent SL2 with on-chip ADC, 24mp, decent AF etc. will be a runaway hit. The only reason Canon might not make it is it would put a major dent in M5/M6 sales. But then Canon might not care about that.
MikeJ9116 said:
MikeJ9116 said:
MikeJ9116 said:
It's not really adopting a new system..
Click to expand...
If I currently have none of the gear, then I consider it as adopting a new system.
Click to expand...
But you already have Canon glass and an M3....
Click to expand...
I was referring to moving to Sony, Fuji, Oly etc.
Click to expand...
 
So how long did u have the m5 before u sent it back.

Also.. why didn't u get an sl1 in place of the m3.
 
Getting back on topic momentarily, I agree that with the advent of the 77D a price drop on the M5 is probably justified.

And back off topic, the only point I'm making with those pictures is that the M3 isn't unusably inept in some challenging shooting conditions. Sure it doesn't have pro level sports AF, but I didn't pay 7DII money for it. If highly reliable servo AF with high speed burst shooting was a priority for my photography, the M3 would not be the correct tool. That doesn't make it a bad camera for it's intended use and as has been demonstrated here, with photographic evidence, the M3 is capable of producing excellent images under challenging conditions if used correctly. Trust me, when I stuck my 28 macro 2cm away from those wasps, I was not hanging about to shoot 50 shots to get 2 keepers while fighting with AF. I did not get those shots with dumb luck and I'm reasonably sure neither did PhotoKhan or any of the other members of this forum who have posted some really excellent work.

The M5 shares some of the compromises of the M3. It's not going to challenge the shutter rate of a Sony a9 or have the great 4K movie quality of the Panasonic GH5. Again, that doesn't make it a bad camera. It's a solid allrounder, priced lower than a lot of the higher end specialists that people compare it to. With the advent of the 77D a price drop on the M5 is probably justified if all you're doing is comparing tables of specs.

Personally I value the size and weight of my camera system very highly. That's something the M system excels at in a spec table. The M system has a terrible lens selection if you ignore the good lenses, funny that. The 11-22, 22f/2 and 28 macro are all excellent lenses and the 55-200 is optically just ok, but damn it's small for what it is. The only thing I'm personally missing in there is a fast portrait prime that keeps the M series theme of small, light, well priced and optically excellent. Get on it Canon! I want a long tele but because physics hates us that'll never be small so even if there was a M mount long tele it'd be huge. I can live with adapting an EF mount long tele for the 10 days a year I'd realistically use it, for the other 355 days I'll have the M5 in my backpack with the 11-22 attached, the 28 macro and 55-200 in a case and probably the 22 lurking in a pocket somewhere. No other system offers that range for that price at that weight, at that optical quality, not by a long shot.

Every camera system has some or other 'deal breaking' problem, Sony's overheat, Fuji's don't play particularly well with Lightroom, Nikon has shutter recalls, etc. I'll be frustrated when there's an inexplicable delay from the shutter release button when I'm in very low light, shooting with a flash, in M mode with AF set to manual but for the other 99.995% of shots I'm going to take with the M5 it's killer failure won't really be a problem. Go ahead and condemn the M system for it's particular flaw, but good luck finding a camera system that doesn't have at least one of those lurking about under just the wrong set of conditions.

--
I regularly work with ionizing radiation. That probably explains a lot about the post you just read.
 
Last edited:
ZedDoctor said:
MikeJ9116 said:
ZedDoctor said:
MikeJ9116 said:
ZedDoctor said:
A6500 is $1,400. X-T2 is $1599, GH5 is $2,000, OM-D Eii is $2,000. Canon is no where near priced like these.
Click to expand...
The M5 is no where near the capabilities of these cameras or has the native lens catalog. As I referenced earlier, the A6500 offers a lot for the $300-$400 additional cost. It seems that Canon will never offer a camera like the A6500 as it would take too big a bite out of their DSLR line. The M5 is basically a $700-$800 camera. It should be priced like a T7i, IMO.
Click to expand...
Nice job cutting out those quotes ;) But after all, you did say top line competition.. and those cameras are top line mirror less cameras...
Click to expand...
I cut out the text as the post gets ridiculously long after a while.
ZedDoctor said:
So 4K, an unnecessary amount of AF points, and 2 more FPS is worth $400, even though you're giving up Touch-to-Drag AF, Dual-Pixel AF, better menus, a fully capable touch screen compared to a crippled touchscreen, and better battery life?
Click to expand...
I never said the A6500 was perfect. How long will it be before Canon gives us an M camera with 5-axis IBIS and 4k video? 4K video might show up in the next iteration but IBIS might not happen in my lifetime (I have a good 20-30 years left). The IBIS in the A6500 is worth most of the $300-$400 extra cost and makes up for a lot of other shortcomings.
Click to expand...
But the EOS M5 has IBS in it. Along with the IBS in its lenses..
Click to expand...
It is digital stabilization and only works for video. The A6500 has 5-axis mechanical IBIS and makes any lens stabilized for stills and video. Imagine having a camera that stabilizes all the great, inexpensive prime lenses Canon makes. This is why I think IBIS in the A6500 is nearly worth the added cost over the M5 alone and/or makes up for a good number of its shortcomings.
ZedDoctor said:
ZedDoctor said:
ZedDoctor said:
ZedDoctor said:
ZedDoctor said:
You do realize that IF an SL2 is released, it's most likely going to be as or more expensive than the M5. Considering that the SL1 started at $1000, it will likely be more.

And then we'll have people complain that again the body is too overpriced for what they want to pay, and we will be having the same conversation.
Click to expand...
The SL1 was not priced high when it appeared. It was at the lower end of the Rebel line. I would expect the SL2 to be similarly priced.
Click to expand...
If you look at what if offered for the price, compared to what else was selling against it, it was expensive for a crippled rebel camera.
Click to expand...
It was a well reviewed and well received camera. It still has a cult following. It was actually ahead of its time as the market has gone in the direct of small, light weight bodies. I have no doubt a decent SL2 with on-chip ADC, 24mp, decent AF etc. will be a runaway hit. The only reason Canon might not make it is it would put a major dent in M5/M6 sales. But then Canon might not care about that.
ZedDoctor said:
ZedDoctor said:
ZedDoctor said:
It's not really adopting a new system..
Click to expand...
If I currently have none of the gear, then I consider it as adopting a new system.
Click to expand...
But you already have Canon glass and an M3....
Click to expand...
I was referring to moving to Sony, Fuji, Oly etc.
Click to expand...
--
"Earth with out art is just eh."
Click to expand...
 
MikeJ9116 said:
ZedDoctor said:
MikeJ9116 said:
ZedDoctor said:
MikeJ9116 said:
ZedDoctor said:
A6500 is $1,400. X-T2 is $1599, GH5 is $2,000, OM-D Eii is $2,000. Canon is no where near priced like these.
Click to expand...
The M5 is no where near the capabilities of these cameras or has the native lens catalog. As I referenced earlier, the A6500 offers a lot for the $300-$400 additional cost. It seems that Canon will never offer a camera like the A6500 as it would take too big a bite out of their DSLR line. The M5 is basically a $700-$800 camera. It should be priced like a T7i, IMO.
Click to expand...
Nice job cutting out those quotes ;) But after all, you did say top line competition.. and those cameras are top line mirror less cameras...
Click to expand...
I cut out the text as the post gets ridiculously long after a while.
MikeJ9116 said:
So 4K, an unnecessary amount of AF points, and 2 more FPS is worth $400, even though you're giving up Touch-to-Drag AF, Dual-Pixel AF, better menus, a fully capable touch screen compared to a crippled touchscreen, and better battery life?
Click to expand...
I never said the A6500 was perfect. How long will it be before Canon gives us an M camera with 5-axis IBIS and 4k video? 4K video might show up in the next iteration but IBIS might not happen in my lifetime (I have a good 20-30 years left). The IBIS in the A6500 is worth most of the $300-$400 extra cost and makes up for a lot of other shortcomings.
Click to expand...
But the EOS M5 has IBS in it. Along with the IBS in its lenses..
Click to expand...
It is digital stabilization and only works for video. The A6500 has 5-axis mechanical IBIS and makes any lens stabilized for stills and video. Imagine having a camera that stabilizes all the great, inexpensive prime lenses Canon makes. This is why I think IBIS in the A6500 is nearly worth the added cost over the M5 alone and/or makes up for a good number of its shortcomings.
Click to expand...
You do realize is is built into most canon lenses. Also is useless on fast moving objects that u are trying to track. I have a Pentax and so y with ibis and I've found I do better without it. I also know that if my ev is gonna be long that a tripod is better. Case in point I have the 70 200 f4 l and had the 70 200 f2.8 is. I sent the f2.8 back because the is was of no use nor produced any better pictures at the ranges I shoot. Most fast primes don't need is unless your shooting in low light situations. At least it has it for video. Those who use it for that purpose are better off with it. As for me... for other use I can take or leave it... and rather leave it.
MikeJ9116 said:
MikeJ9116 said:
MikeJ9116 said:
MikeJ9116 said:
MikeJ9116 said:
MikeJ9116 said:
You do realize that IF an SL2 is released, it's most likely going to be as or more expensive than the M5. Considering that the SL1 started at $1000, it will likely be more.

And then we'll have people complain that again the body is too overpriced for what they want to pay, and we will be having the same conversation.
Click to expand...
The SL1 was not priced high when it appeared. It was at the lower end of the Rebel line. I would expect the SL2 to be similarly priced.
Click to expand...
If you look at what if offered for the price, compared to what else was selling against it, it was expensive for a crippled rebel camera.
Click to expand...
It was a well reviewed and well received camera. It still has a cult following. It was actually ahead of its time as the market has gone in the direct of small, light weight bodies. I have no doubt a decent SL2 with on-chip ADC, 24mp, decent AF etc. will be a runaway hit. The only reason Canon might not make it is it would put a major dent in M5/M6 sales. But then Canon might not care about that.
MikeJ9116 said:
MikeJ9116 said:
MikeJ9116 said:
It's not really adopting a new system..
Click to expand...
If I currently have none of the gear, then I consider it as adopting a new system.
Click to expand...
But you already have Canon glass and an M3....
Click to expand...
I was referring to moving to Sony, Fuji, Oly etc.
Click to expand...
--
"Earth with out art is just eh."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Nicholas Laidler said:
Getting back on topic momentarily, I agree that with the advent of the 77D a price drop on the M5 is probably justified.

And back off topic, the only point I'm making with those pictures is that the M3 isn't unusably inept in some challenging shooting conditions. Sure it doesn't have pro level sports AF, but I didn't pay 7DII money for it. If highly reliable servo AF with high speed burst shooting was a priority for my photography, the M3 would not be the correct tool. That doesn't make it a bad camera for it's intended use and as has been demonstrated here, with photographic evidence, the M3 is capable of producing excellent images under challenging conditions if used correctly. Trust me, when I stuck my 28 macro 2cm away from those wasps, I was not hanging about to shoot 50 shots to get 2 keepers while fighting with AF. I did not get those shots with dumb luck and I'm reasonably sure neither did PhotoKhan or any of the other members of this forum who have posted some really excellent work.

The M5 shares some of the compromises of the M3. It's not going to challenge the shutter rate of a Sony a9 or have the great 4K movie quality of the Panasonic GH5. Again, that doesn't make it a bad camera. It's a solid allrounder, priced lower than a lot of the higher end specialists that people compare it to. With the advent of the 77D a price drop on the M5 is probably justified if all you're doing is comparing tables of specs.

Personally I value the size and weight of my camera system very highly. That's something the M system excels at in a spec table. The M system has a terrible lens selection if you ignore the good lenses, funny that. The 11-22, 22f/2 and 28 macro are all excellent lenses and the 55-200 is optically just ok, but damn it's small for what it is. The only thing I'm personally missing in there is a fast portrait prime that keeps the M series theme of small, light, well priced and optically excellent. Get on it Canon! I want a long tele but because physics hates us that'll never be small so even if there was a M mount long tele it'd be huge. I can live with adapting an EF mount long tele for the 10 days a year I'd realistically use it, for the other 355 days I'll have the M5 in my backpack with the 11-22 attached, the 28 macro and 55-200 in a case and probably the 22 lurking in a pocket somewhere. No other system offers that range for that price at that weight, at that optical quality, not by a long shot.
Click to expand...
The m4/3 system can easily match that setup, and in some cases with even smaller lenses.
Nicholas Laidler said:
Every camera system has some or other 'deal breaking' problem, Sony's overheat, Fuji's don't play particularly well with Lightroom, Nikon has shutter recalls, etc. I'll be frustrated when there's an inexplicable delay from the shutter release button when I'm in very low light, shooting with a flash, in M mode with AF set to manual but for the other 99.995% of shots I'm going to take with the M5 it's killer failure won't really be a problem. Go ahead and condemn the M system for it's particular flaw, but good luck finding a camera system that doesn't have at least one of those lurking about under just the wrong set of conditions.
Click to expand...
Not likely in this approx $1000 price bracket. If you did find another camera with an odd quirk, it would likely get rectified via a firmware update. Canon is the only company intentionally crippling their mirrorless cameras and the only one with a complete absence of firmware fixes.
Nicholas Laidler said:
--
I regularly work with ionizing radiation. That probably explains a lot about the post you just read.
Click to expand...
 
Nicholas Laidler said:
I'll be frustrated when there's an inexplicable delay from the shutter release button when I'm in very low light, shooting with a flash, in M mode with AF set to manual but for the other 99.995% of shots I'm going to take with the M5 it's killer failure won't really be a problem.
Click to expand...
I will tell you what's more frustrating. For all the shortcomings of the M system you have listed, Canon has a solution but will not release it. Going forward, I am reluctant to sponsor such companies.
 
csxfan said:
You do realize is is built into most canon lenses. Also is useless on fast moving objects that u are trying to track. I have a Pentax and so y with ibis and I've found I do better without it. I also know that if my ev is gonna be long that a tripod is better. Case in point I have the 70 200 f4 l and had the 70 200 f2.8 is. I sent the f2.8 back because the is was of no use nor produced any better pictures at the ranges I shoot. Most fast primes don't need is unless your shooting in low light situations. At least it has it for video. Those who use it for that purpose are better off with it. As for me... for other use I can take or leave it... and rather leave it.
Click to expand...
IMO, stabilization is useful for any lens that is being used handheld outside of optimal lighting conditions. The economics of IBIS is undeniable. It takes any lens and makes it useful in low shutter speed shooting situations. It allows one to buy less expensive lenses and get the same, or close to the same, results of more expensive OIS lenses. I would love to have the option of a M camera with IBIS.

As for whether IBIS performs better than OIS or vice versa, the differences are not all that great for most peoples' needs. IBIS adds a lot of capability to any non-stabilized lens attached to the camera and this is a nice advantage to have.
 
nnowak said:
nnowak said:
Every camera system has some or other 'deal breaking' problem, Sony's overheat, Fuji's don't play particularly well with Lightroom, Nikon has shutter recalls, etc. I'll be frustrated when there's an inexplicable delay from the shutter release button when I'm in very low light, shooting with a flash, in M mode with AF set to manual but for the other 99.995% of shots I'm going to take with the M5 it's killer failure won't really be a problem. Go ahead and condemn the M system for it's particular flaw, but good luck finding a camera system that doesn't have at least one of those lurking about under just the wrong set of conditions.
Click to expand...
Not likely in this approx $1000 price bracket. If you did find another camera with an odd quirk, it would likely get rectified via a firmware update. Canon is the only company intentionally crippling their mirrorless cameras and the only one with a complete absence of firmware fixes.
Click to expand...
You bring up another major downside to using M cameras. Canon acts like M firmware updates require the second coming of Christ to occur first. This is especially frustrating when they are unwilling to fix problems through firmware updates that should never have existed in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G-D
M5 will probably be sell a lot better if it includes built in GPS, not sure what's holding R&D back, GPS modules should be really cheap now, most likely COST issues(profit) not design issues with GPS anthennas, as it can fit easily.

--
Have fun with photography! Start taking photos!!
 
Last edited:
MikeJ9116 said:
I have never complained about the IQ from my M3. Your photos actually support, and illustrate, my point about the M3 being slow. All the pictures you posted are of static subjects or of things that are not much of a challenge for the auto focus system. Shooting a subject moving toward or away from the camera with the M3 is an exercise in futility. Trying to nail pinpoint focus with it mostly comes down to dumb luck. Shot to shot performance is horrible and lets not even mention bracketing. Sure, it is possible to get the odd good shot but don't ever count on consistency from the M3 regarding moving targets.

Nice photos, BTW.
Click to expand...
Well, if your complaint is about a specific operational aspect of the camera (being poor for action photography) why the generic epithet, then?

Even with that particular shortcoming in mind, why berate a camera for delivering short on something it clearly was not designed to do?

It is becoming kind of an anthropological case-study the number of users here that, failing to see what the "M" line really is - the mirrorless piece of a much more comprehensive EOS eco-system and not just a mirrorless, per se - keep complaining about the line and, yet, seem unable to stay away from this forum, year after year, model after model.

Some have even made an art form out of it and I very much expect them to be around when Canon comes up with the EOS M12237. ;)

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.humbertoborgesfotografia.com/
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
MikeJ9116 said:
csxfan said:
You do realize is is built into most canon lenses. Also is useless on fast moving objects that u are trying to track. I have a Pentax and so y with ibis and I've found I do better without it. I also know that if my ev is gonna be long that a tripod is better. Case in point I have the 70 200 f4 l and had the 70 200 f2.8 is. I sent the f2.8 back because the is was of no use nor produced any better pictures at the ranges I shoot. Most fast primes don't need is unless your shooting in low light situations. At least it has it for video. Those who use it for that purpose are better off with it. As for me... for other use I can take or leave it... and rather leave it.
Click to expand...
IMO, stabilization is useful for any lens that is being used handheld outside of optimal lighting conditions. The economics of IBIS is undeniable. It takes any lens and makes it useful in low shutter speed shooting situations.
Click to expand...
again, they make lenses with is built in. is can come from in handy with long focal lengths. for the faster primes its pointless imo. i didnt notice any difference with shot sony or pentax. then again, in low light situations im not afraid to ride the iso to get the shot. if the lighting is that low, then a tripod will suffice, but i havent had to use one yet. ive done moon shots and low light portraits without ibis. i shoot raw so if i slightly under expose, ill work with post processing in ps.
MikeJ9116 said:
It allows one to buy less expensive lenses and get the same, or close to the same, results of more expensive OIS lenses. I would love to have the option of a M camera with IBIS.
Click to expand...
really, go check lens prices for different systems. lens prices are the same for the system from 3rd party vendors. sony and pentax users pay the same price as canon and nikon users with or without is.
MikeJ9116 said:
As for whether IBIS performs better than OIS or vice versa, the differences are not all that great for most peoples' needs. IBIS adds a lot of capability to any non-stabilized lens attached to the camera and this is a nice advantage to have.
Click to expand...
just dont forget to turn off one of the is systems. can screw up a good shot if you dont.
 
PhotoKhan said:
MikeJ9116 said:
I have never complained about the IQ from my M3. Your photos actually support, and illustrate, my point about the M3 being slow. All the pictures you posted are of static subjects or of things that are not much of a challenge for the auto focus system. Shooting a subject moving toward or away from the camera with the M3 is an exercise in futility. Trying to nail pinpoint focus with it mostly comes down to dumb luck. Shot to shot performance is horrible and lets not even mention bracketing. Sure, it is possible to get the odd good shot but don't ever count on consistency from the M3 regarding moving targets.

Nice photos, BTW.
Click to expand...
Well, if your complaint is about a specific operational aspect of the camera (being poor for action photography) why the generic epithet, then?

Even with that particular shortcoming in mind, why berate a camera for delivering short on something it clearly was not designed to do?

It is becoming kind of an anthropological case-study the number of users here that, failing to see what the "M" line really is - the mirrorless piece of a much more comprehensive EOS eco-system and not just a mirrorless, per se - keep complaining about the line and, yet, seem unable to stay away from this forum, year after year, model after model.

Some have even made an art form out of it and I very much expect them to be around when Canon comes up with the EOS M12237. ;)
Click to expand...
I have been very patient with Canon regarding their development of the M line of cameras and lenses. I waited on the M5 and then waited to get feedback from actual users. I don't have any need for fanboy posts. I come hear to get the good, the bad and the ugly regarding camera gear. The facts are the EOS M line has been poorly executed by Canon either by design or incompetence. At this point I don't care which reason is true I am done giving Canon any more of my money for a system they seem to have little interest in developing in a serious manner.

Obviously the M cameras are good enough for many people but I expect more from the top Camera company in the world. I have other Canon gear that I am very satisfied with and I will remain a Canon user for the foreseeable future but the M system just hasn't developed in a manner that will keep me throwing money at it. I am pleased that many people here are happy with the performance of their M gear but I am not one of them.

I have been photographing with SLRs since the late 1970s and with DSLRs since the 300D first came out. I know what i want from a camera and the M3 has been the biggest disappoint in a camera body I have had. I took a leap of faith with the M3 as it was not available to handle in the USA at the time I purchased it. I will never make that mistake again but Canon hasn't put much of an effort into the EOS M system since its inception. I expected them to be more aggressive with lens releases and that the M5 would be a more technologically advanced and capable camera. I expected them to give us firmware releases to at least fix the problems that existed on camera launches but they aren't even willing to do that. IMO, Canon created the M line to stop the bleeding of their DSLR customer base from going to other MILC brands and possibly leaving Canon for good while not allowing it to cannibalize their DSLR line.

Some may not like what I type but it is accurate and based on personal experience with many of the M products. I will praise the M gear that deserves it and critique the gear that falls short. Go through the photos that are posted in this forum. You will see hardly anything but landscape, architecture and photos of mostly static or slow moving subjects. Go to the other MILC forums and see what is posted there and it will bring home the reality of just how bad the EOS M line is for shooting moving targets.
 
Check the prices of Canon's prime lenses with and without IS. The price differences are staggering. IBIS is the great equalizer for this market segment.
 
MikeJ9116 said:
ZedDoctor said:
Venkat S said:
ZedDoctor said:
But the EOS M5 has IBS in it.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? My M5 does not.
Click to expand...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281375-REG/canon_1279c011aa_eos_m5_mirrorless_digital.html

Under specs In-body 5-Axis Stablization is listed.

I believe it's only available during Video.
Click to expand...
It is not mechanical. It is digital stabilization. It works in combination with the lens IS if available.
Click to expand...
It also makes the relatively poor video quality of the M5 even worse.
 
csxfan said:
MikeJ9116 said:
csxfan said:
You do realize is is built into most canon lenses. Also is useless on fast moving objects that u are trying to track. I have a Pentax and so y with ibis and I've found I do better without it. I also know that if my ev is gonna be long that a tripod is better. Case in point I have the 70 200 f4 l and had the 70 200 f2.8 is. I sent the f2.8 back because the is was of no use nor produced any better pictures at the ranges I shoot. Most fast primes don't need is unless your shooting in low light situations. At least it has it for video. Those who use it for that purpose are better off with it. As for me... for other use I can take or leave it... and rather leave it.
Click to expand...
IMO, stabilization is useful for any lens that is being used handheld outside of optimal lighting conditions. The economics of IBIS is undeniable. It takes any lens and makes it useful in low shutter speed shooting situations.
Click to expand...
again, they make lenses with is built in.
Click to expand...
Not every focal length is available with stabilization. For example, Canon doesn't have a stabilized 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, or 135mm. None of my existing Canon glass is stabilized, unless I am adapting it to a non-Canon body.
csxfan said:
is can come from in handy with long focal lengths. for the faster primes its pointless imo.
Click to expand...
IS is just as useful for wide angle as it is for telephoto. Instead of the old 1/focal length rule, 4/focal length usually works.
csxfan said:
i didnt notice any difference with shot sony or pentax. then again, in low light situations im not afraid to ride the iso to get the shot. if the lighting is that low, then a tripod will suffice, but i havent had to use one yet. ive done moon shots and low light portraits without ibis. i shoot raw so if i slightly under expose, ill work with post processing in ps.
Click to expand...
Underexposing is a good way to make your shots even nosier. I would rather engage IS where appropriate and drop my ISO by 4 stops.
csxfan said:
csxfan said:
It allows one to buy less expensive lenses and get the same, or close to the same, results of more expensive OIS lenses. I would love to have the option of a M camera with IBIS.
Click to expand...
really, go check lens prices for different systems. lens prices are the same for the system from 3rd party vendors. sony and pentax users pay the same price as canon and nikon users with or without is.
csxfan said:
As for whether IBIS performs better than OIS or vice versa, the differences are not all that great for most peoples' needs. IBIS adds a lot of capability to any non-stabilized lens attached to the camera and this is a nice advantage to have.
Click to expand...
just dont forget to turn off one of the is systems. can screw up a good shot if you dont.
Click to expand...
Lens based IS can wreak havoc on bokeh. Body based IS doesn't. Body based IS can also correct for more axes of motion than lens based IS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
From X-T20 to X-T5: why I didn't switch to FF
2
Replies
36
Views
14K
Clive99
C
M
Should I stay or should I go (and where)? - Fujifilm vs. Panasonic vs. Nikon
Replies
6
Views
11K
Mephistopheles26
M
Satyaa
ML journey with m43... part 1 the cameras
Replies
1
Views
3K
jalywol
jalywol
R
  • User review User review
Well rounded
2 3
Replies
42
Views
64K
RLight
R
S
Who's standing - Canon, Sony, Fuji?
Replies
18
Views
413
MarshallG
MarshallG

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top