Long read, warning. Anecdotes on the EOS R, EOS M50, G1X III, SL2 and the Turnstyle 5 v2 bag and evolution of mirrorless Canon essentially and my journey with it. You've been warned. Lots of information here that follows my story; perhaps it'll be of use to others.
So I've taken a year long hiatus from the M; I just got tired of swapping lenses. The M systems offers everything at your fingertips without bulk constraints, but comes with an unforeseen side effect: constantly thinking about what I'm going to shoot with via carrying around a bag everywhere (that had every EF-M lens in it), and I took the plunge and nabbed the Powershot G1X III around last Xmas and sold everything M I had as my wife required I pay for what I buy with sales of what I had, regardless of what the bank account said. Ugh. I think she's just sick of my swapping cameras, which I've done yet again here.
Wonderful Powershot btw, the first one that holds a candle in my book. The prior efforts of the G1X II had various issues I couldn't pallet (metering hiccups resulting in highlight blowouts and lack of DR to fix badly exposed images from hiccups mainly) and the G3X/G5X/G7X/G9X all seemed to lack the special something in rendition that the G1X III delivered. I assumed it was the larger sensor imparted something special, however, I've come to learn that it is in fact the CFA (color filtering array, which alters how RAW colors are rendered, not JPEG, but the JPEG engine too is a rendering of what the RAW sensor readout is; it's truly an art/science in itself) of the 80D sensor which gives the special Canon feel married with a higher end optic as the G1X III's lens has a stronger color, contrast and sharpness than the EF-M 15-45 by a good step/level if you will and better rendition than the other G offerings. It has a special feel to the images that is much more DSLR-like at the end of the day as a result. Moving along.
I've had the itch forever to return to full frame (I came from a 5DIII and L background, but got tired of lugging them around everywhere, and tired of smartphone output when I didn't, like most folks here) and when the EOS R came out I was ready to spend $6.5k on it and leap back into full frame with an RF 24-105, RF 50mm f/1.2, RF 35mm f/1.8 and adapter with plans on some "cheap" telephoto and ultra wide EF glass (not cheap compared to the EF-M, we're getting there). But, the more I asked myself (and talked to the wife about it), was it really necessary or appropriate to spend that much currency on a hobby, one that I primarily use for documenting family events and having fun, and one that just 4 years ago I couldn't pallet the weight / bulk of the system and fled to the G1X II and EOS M system afterwards? At the end of the day you have to ask yourself what kind of photographer are you? Everyone these days is a photographer with a smartphone, but what are you shooting and why? I'm a family-guy that sometimes does work for volunteer organizations and likes to have fun, not professional.
Having played with the R extensively at a local Best Buy, it too had metering hiccups (not nearly as bad as the G1X II though, but somewhat infrequent occasions), sluggish touch and drag response (compared to the EOS M5, G1X III and now EOS M50) and missed AF quite a bit when using L+Tracking or even Zone AF, more than folks who own it will admit to as loyal Canon owners proud of their purchase and holding off the line of Sony/Nikon, etc etc etc. Granted single point is razer sharp and spot on, but that's an indicator that the solo DIGIC8 can't keep up with the firehouse of the 30MP sensor, which lack of continuous AF + eye AF is a symptom of (which the EOS M50 shares, I might add). The EOS R, although capable of producing wonderful images, is underpowered with a single DIGIC8 vs 30.3MP and a 3.69million dot EVF and 2.1M dot LCD, which is ALOT more data than say the EOS M50's 24.1MP sensor with a 2.36M dot EVF and 1.04M dot LCD; it's actually an exponential exercise; you're talking 6720x4480 vs 6000x4000 with an already under gunned processor. Playing with the M50 next to the R confirmed my gut; the M50 could deliver consistent AF again and again on a slow f/3.5-6.3 crop lens (indoors at that) vs the f/4 full frame lens on the R next to it. The R is already in need of a CPU upgrade right out the gate, be it dual DIGIC8, or DIGIC9, which at the rate Canon goes is at least another year out for DIGIC9 as DIGIC8 came out earlier this year and Canon seems to have a 2 year cycle akin to Intel/AMD/other silicon companies.
Although I was laser focused on the EOS R when it came out, the M50 always impressed me when I played with it when I visited Best Buy, which naturally popped up 4 months after I left the M system. But, the M series still lacked something I live on and breath on, a fast 50-80mm equivalent offering for portraits and lower light venues. That something, Canon remediated with the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM which acts as a 51mm f/2.2 lens. To put in perspective, the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM is pretty close to Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 Z, except, can be had with a much cheaper body, with a much cheaper total system cost and was Canon which has Canon's colors, Canon's AF, Canon's DPAF video, Canon's ergonomics and workflow (DLO for optics, in camera now with the R and M50, and on the fly shot to shot smartphone sync). The M system also has an awesome 11-22 wide angle offering, inexpensive 28 macro offering, lightweight 55-200 telephoto offering and of course the renowned 22mm f/2 pancake for ultra compact street/low light shooting. Nikon's Z and Canon's R lack those, and even when they get them, they'll be big, heavy and expensive. Hmmm.
I got sick of not having a telephoto and portrait option ultimately and decided on a more moderate purchase first though that was even less expensive than the M, a refurbished SL2 with 18-55 and picked up the 55-20 and travel and portrait 2-lens kit (10-18 and 50mm f/1.8) plus the 24mm f/2.8 STM. The SL2 is really a work of art on behalf of Canon. Even though it's bigger, it handles better than the M5 and M50 which I now have due to its larger grip and traditional OVF which mind you I'm still fond of the 5DIII. I did find a couple complaints, the RAW buffer, but, truth told most things I nab the JPEG anyways as I shoot RAW+JPEG so I figured I'd shoot JPEG only as needed for those things. Except, I found the metering on the SL2 wasn't all that and a bag of chips. It too on rarer occasions than the R, incorrectly metered some shots, which naturally I didn't know till I got home it being an OVF shooter. Sadly those were important images. That didn't put it out yet. Wasn't until my travel and portrait kit arrived and I slapped on the nifty fifty on that I was reminded of the SL2's AF (or lack thereof). Center AF only for indoor/low light. Switching to live view fixed that, but, had enough drift at f/1.8 it being DIGIC7 powered it behaved much like my former M5, which lead to some shots being slightly out of focus for portraits. Then there was the 24mm pancake, a full stop slower than the 22mm f/2, and it showed. Outdoors the SL2 was a dream, but indoors, although very very good bang for the buck, my taste buds were already expecting more. I returned it to Canon and purchased the M50 and the works (every EF-M minus the 18-55, 18-150).
Now having owned the 18-150, which I sold the 55-200 and 18-55 for (another my wife wanted me to at least somewhat pay for it at the time), I corrected my mistake of you either go wide (11-22), long (55-200) shallow (32mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.8 or faster adapted) or small (28 macro), or go home. The 18-150 although a wonderful vacation lens, I've found it's rendition a bit weak on the contrast and colors compared to the 55-200 as well as that last 50mm does really matter. I also sold my 28 macro when I owned the M5 as I didn't use it much (also to help pay for the 50mm f/1.2 MF Rokinon at the time), that, was a mistake which I corrected and have been having a lot of fun with the 28 macro this time around. Let me say, if you have to ask yourself about 18-150 or 55-200, I won't say you shouldn't do the 18-150, but you may regret it if you sell one for the other, put it that way. I did. Sometimes you don't know what you have till it's gone. This can be said of both the M, and the 55-200 and 28 macro.
Moving along, I picked up the newer Think Tank Turnstyle 5 v2 (I had the v1 before) and the v2 fixed my misgivings by having a center waist strap to keep the thing from rotating when not desired in rapid movement (chasing my kids). One big complaint I had fixed. Yay.
The M50 at first gave a paltry 10 raw buffer, but, adjusting to CRAW fixed that bumping it to 16 which has been more than adequate for both my needs, and my fast Sandisk Extreme Pro 64GB UHS-I which can clear that data pretty quickly. By the way, before you balk to much at the IQ hit, which I haven't seen any thus far, the M5 when it came out, a little footnote was there about 12-bit RAW, not 14-bit, which presumably was necessary for it to get the 17-18 frames of RAW buffer. The fact the M50 does 16 frames with CRAW, but, has a 10 FPS vs the 9FPS of the M5 makes me think perhaps CRAW is 12-bit RAW? Maybe, at 10FPS, you'll probably fill that ~300MB buffer in 16 frames instead of 17-18 as it's had less time to clear as you shoot, if that makes sense or the CRAW is 14-bit but is cutting corners elsewhere. I think the latter is likely as I noted Adobe RGB is supported on the M50 btw but in fact the moral here is the M50 and M5 probably share the same buffer size (RAM) but you need to dial in CRAW to level the playing field as in fact the M5 was already using a form of CRAW out the gate, but you couldn't turn it off in lieu of full RAW like the M50 is defaulted to. I like my 16 frames and the IQ hit isn't there so I'll take CRAW thank you. Also, I don't have to move data from my internal SSD of my MacBook Pro to my 8TB external so often as a result, very very nice.
The 143 AF points of the M50 plus better tracking and eye-AF cured my other complaint of the M system, the AF of the M was finally at DSLR territory in performance. I can say that, not just as a loyal Canon owner, but honestly. The M5 got close enough that I stopped thinking about the AF (which you always thought about the lack of AF performance when shooting the M, M2, and M3 before it and were constantly having to compensate) but the M50 is finally there for lack of better words. The EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM needs the stronger AF of the M50. Funny, Rudy at Canon says that you need a lens like the 32mm f/1.4 STM to make the most of a camera like the M5 or M6, but I'd say you need a camera like the M50 to make the most of the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM; arguably the latter is more important. By the way, I do look forward to an M5 II as although the M50 is the better camera in my book (compared to the M5, even though it's more expensive), the controls of the M5 are missed when shooting a lens like the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM, this is true. The fully articulating screen of the G1X III and SL2 was really really nice, and having it on the M50 is a huge boon as well. I presume the M5 II will also sport it.
I've programmed Single / Servo AF to the M-FN button, and AF method (L+Tracking, Zone, Single Point) to the AF/MF button on the back btw.
The other lens that benefits from the M50 is the 28 macro. The AF behaves so much better than my M5 in that regard and the lens is even more fun to use on the M50 with the fully articulating screen.
When I had my 5DIII back in the day, I actually stole a page from my wedding photographer and carried a 100-400, 17-40 and 50mm on me, the idea was to go long, go wide or go shallow. It was the right idea. Unfortunately as I discovered, that much glass between the 100-400 and 17-40 alone with the 5D III meant it started getting left home a lot. I substituted out the 24-105 to mitigate that but ended up with less interesting shots but the 5DIII + 24-105 went out more. That too became just too much and then I started down the journey I am now. But like then, and now, I made the mistake with the M5 with the 15-45, 18-55, 55-200 and consolidated down to the 18-150 with the other 22mm f/2 and 11-22. My bag now contains the M50, 11-22, 32 f/1.4, 55-200 and 28 macro. The 22mm will go with me to family parties like this upcoming Xmas (but I’m wondering if I even need the 22mm f/2 in the wake of the 32mm f/1.4, any thoughts?) The 15-45 stays at home in case I really want to go light (but I still have the G1X III which I’m wondering about but am in no hurry to sell it as it’s a “winner”) and the 28 macro doubles for movie duty for things in the normal range between its hybrid IS (vs the 32mm and 22mm have no IS, and I don’t want to carry a lens like the 15-45 which is boring and yet another lens in the bag to think about or sift through), 28mm and I have it for macro.
Right now I’m pretty happy, by consolidating down my options in my bag to specifics only, getting rid of all-around lenses like the 15-45 or 18-150 and lens overlap like the 22mm vs 32mm, I’m not thinking about what lens for what. That was perhaps a rookie mistake on my behalf. The purpose of an ILC is lenses, they make the system, and you should have lenses that excel at things, not lenses that are just okay at everything I’ve found. The G1X III would suit one well for that, hate to say it.
Anyhow I’ve only been back to the M for a few days but Canon and Turnstyle seem to have fixed all my complaints between the M50 and 32mm f/1.4 and newer v2 bag, except perhaps the lack of real 4K, which I suspect is coming via the M5 II early next year, that and I still have to borrow my friends 50mm f/1.4 USM to test for portraits-portraits as there is something to be said about 80mm even though the 32mm f/1.4 does them well and provides more than enough bokeh for most of my needs except with looser framing more appropriate for general use. I may or may not pick up a 50mm f/1.8 STM or 50mm f/1.4 USM for adapting for those cases sooner than later though. We’ll see. Also the fate of the 22mm f/2 is up for grabs as is the G1X III. I’m in no hurry on any of the above, except perhaps the 50mm since there is sales right now and if I really want 80mm equivalence back, now is a good time with the sales to do it.
Morale’s of the story:
The M50 is a wonderful tool for folks like myself that want bang for buck and don’t want to kill your back and make no mistake M5/M6 owners, it’s a step up in almost every regard between the improved AF, fully articulating screen, smarter metering and on-the-fly DLO correction data and connectivity. The M5 II and M6 II is right around the corner though so don’t pay too much attention to camera lust, I just had the itch and bit and the M50 made the most sense as the 15-45 and 55-200 kit deal made sense for me as I was starting from scratch and wanted both, even though I’ll use the 15-45 very infrequently of the two. The M5 II and M6 II aren’t going to be cheap though at MSPR $999 is my guess though.
The 32mm f/1.4 STM arguably makes the Nikon Z system somewhat questionable at this junction considering the equivalence it offers. It is a gem of a lens, like many other EF-M offerings and although $499 may seem steep, when you compare what a similar setup like the Nikon Z costs (which the Z6 body itself starts at $1999), it’s peanuts for a 51mm f/2.2 equivalence that you can shoot wide open with excellent results (vs having to stop down for acceptable results) and is lighter, smaller and lives with other Canon ecosystem, M ecosystem.
Don’t write off the EF-M 55-200 for the EF-M 18-150 so fast or take the 28 macro for granted, you may regret it like I did.
Don’t take your M for granted either. You’ll regret lack of lens options, eventually. I’m not getting rid of my G1X III though either just yet as I may want to go out solo-lens, which has its merits.
The Rebel SL2, even though I returned it, is very formidable and represents arguably the best bang for buck. Its leaps ahead of the Rebel T6 I tried next to it for just a hair more money. It performs well outdoors but indoors between lacking a full stop on its native normal prime equivalent (EF-S 24mm f/2.8 vs EF-M 22mm f/2) and being relegated to only center point AF when using a viewfinder for low-light effectiveness, did it in for me so you do get what you pay for moving up to say an M50 with EF-M glass, now that there is fast (native) glass for the M system anyhow.
The EOS R, even though it can produce stunning images with the new RF glass, the EOS R is very immature and rightly sits between the 6DII having full AF coverage vs the confined 6DII AF coverage, and the 5DIV above it which doesn’t share quirks. I don’t recommend it as a loyal Canon owner. Perhaps a less demanding 26MP 6DII sensor coupled with the single DIGIC8, or, a dual DIGIC8 coupled with the 5DIV sensor, or some newer sensor, is more appropriate and I’d hold off.
Lastly, the break from DPR, was nice. Boards, GAS, and cameras are an end to themselves, as is the media or even photography itself. You have to ask yourself what’s the point? What kind of photographer am I? Unplug every now and again. Go back to the basics. Read a good book or take a training class on photography or art. “Fast” from boards, internet, etc. It’ll do you some good even though here I am writing on a forum, arguably “the” forum as it’s Google indexed and prioritized.
I have quite a bit of spare times these days so I may be spending some time on DPR, but, this is a season, just like there are seasons for everything. Don’t get wrapped around the axle on things. I take my photography far more lax these days after shooting with the Powershot G1X III for a year as it forces you to go simple and focus on the basics like learning how to compose, looking for color, looking for patterns, enjoying the moment instead of worrying about gear and which lens am I grabbing. Spend more time on technique and with family, less on gear and boards. But, do keep in mind you want things that excel, be it long, wide, shallow or close (correct lenses). Everyone has a favorite, mine is shallow and indoor work, and the 32mm f/1.4 is going to be my close friend. I may adapt a 50mm f/1.4 too for the traditional 80mm framing which has something special to it.
At the end of the day Canon provides real life products in my eyes, things that just work, that are cost effective, and you can just take the SOOC jpegs and throw them on Instagram or Facebook via your shot-to-shot sync with your smartphone. The M system is an apex of technology where it may be inexpensive (compared to full frame options) and light optics with hard plastic instead of magnesium casing, but they go places, and although you may not have a f/2.8 zoom, but you have an f/1.4 prime, f/2 pancake, and options for going wide and long and close. Hopefully they’ll be more. Frankly even if there isn’t; if Canon decided to stop right here on the M system, I’d be happy. It’s like a 5DII and the lenses that were out then for it, they are just fine (if you’re okay with carrying them) for most purposes.
Oh, I have a Pro-10 on the way from that Adorama sale fire, really stoked to try it out. May write about that guy too soon enough. I got rid of my Pro-100 and went for a G4210 some months ago, which is great for run of the mill stuff and 4x6’s, but something to be said once again for having a Pro capable of 13x19 prints vs paying $20 a pop for them… 3 large prints and that Pro-10 paid for itself on that sale. Totally off subject, I know.
