Don't buy it for the camera, buy it for the lenses

Nothing really stands out as beeing good about this camera other than its compact size. The AF is very slow, the physical controls are missing crucial things like a mode dial and it has no built-in flash.

What makes this camera interesting is the EF-M lenses. Canon has made some surprisingly good affordable lenses for the EF-M mount.

The 22mm F2 prime and the 11-22mm F4-5.6 wide-angle zoom are both spectacular compared to most other lenses in the same price-range. They compare to lenses costing twice as much.

The 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses are also pretty good, although not as special as the two above.

But unless you can find it really cheap somewhere, I'd recommend waiting for the EOS M3 as it seems to solve most of the problems with this camera (*droool* those ergonomics).

Karl Ramstedt wrote:

Nothing really stands out as beeing good about this camera other than its compact size. The AF is very slow, the physical controls are missing crucial things like a mode dial and it has no built-in flash.

What makes this camera interesting is the EF-M lenses. Canon has made some surprisingly good affordable lenses for the EF-M mount.

The 22mm F2 prime and the 11-22mm F4-5.6 wide-angle zoom are both spectacular compared to most other lenses in the same price-range. They compare to lenses costing twice as much.

The 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses are also pretty good, although not as special as the two above.

But unless you can find it really cheap somewhere, I'd recommend waiting for the EOS M3 as it seems to solve most of the problems with this camera (*droool* those ergonomics).

I didn't even realize this was a thread about the EOS-M until I opened it.
.
The EOS-M has given me better results than ANY non-DSLR camera I've used although the G1X produced some good results for me.  The EOS-M has given me tens of thousands of keepers. 
.
Not entirely sure but your review of the EOS-M probably ought to have been posted on the EOS-M forum because it's not a PowerShot camera.
.
Personally, I've resisted buying any EOS-M lenses and prefer to use mine with EF lenses.
.

The EOS-M has given me better results than ANY non-DSLR camera I've used although the G1X produced some good results for me. The EOS-M has given me tens of thousands of keepers.

This just shows your inexperience with Mirrorless/CSC or your bias toward Canon. Neither shines a positive light on you..

Not entirely sure but your review of the EOS-M probably ought to have been posted on the EOS-M forum because it's not a PowerShot camera.

Not sure what you mean. This is exactly where it should be: in the EOS M reviews category.

Personally, I've resisted buying any EOS-M lenses and prefer to use mine with EF lenses.

Then you're kind of missing the point of the camera. If you want the best image quality and control then you buy the larger, more expensive bodies to go with the larger more expensive lenses.

You don't buy a tiny ~500$ camera to use with large, bulky lenses that cost more than twice as much as the camera itself. That'd be pretty stupid.

The EF-M lenses are fantastic for their size and cost. Both of which (size and cost) are the very reasons to buy into the system in the first place.

Karl Ramstedt wrote:

The EOS-M has given me better results than ANY non-DSLR camera I've used although the G1X produced some good results for me. The EOS-M has given me tens of thousands of keepers.

This just shows your inexperience with Mirrorless/CSC or your bias toward Canon. Neither shines a positive light on you..

Not entirely sure but your review of the EOS-M probably ought to have been posted on the EOS-M forum because it's not a PowerShot camera.

Not sure what you mean. This is exactly where it should be: in the EOS M reviews category.

Personally, I've resisted buying any EOS-M lenses and prefer to use mine with EF lenses.

Then you're kind of missing the point of the camera. If you want the best image quality and control then you buy the larger, more expensive bodies to go with the larger more expensive lenses.

You don't buy a tiny ~500$ camera to use with large, bulky lenses that cost more than twice as much as the camera itself. That'd be pretty stupid.

The EF-M lenses are fantastic for their size and cost. Both of which (size and cost) are the very reasons to buy into the system in the first place.

+1

but beware. making sensible reviews and comments in the eos M subpage is not recommended. They might try to get a moderator on your ass for bashing when doing that.

I find reviewing a camera's abilities without photo examples a fairly useless endeavor... more-so in reading them.

Sure, that's a reasonable claim, one I'd even agree with.

But to look for them in amateur reviews is kind of silly. A better idea is to look for professional reviewers that clearly know how to test the limits of a system.

I'd add this to the review if I could, but since I can't edit it I'll just post it here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-eos-m/canon-eos-mA5.HTM

Gesture wrote:

"The EOS-M has given me tens of thousands of keepers."

That is because you are an outstanding photographer who knows how to work within the constraints of any given camera!

IMHO that is a big part of the attraction of the M - it is a simple tool that yields high IQ. Well, hardly simple, but with a minimum of "user aids", so the emphasis is on photographic skill and ingenuity. That's fun, and the high quality results the camera is capable of are pleasing.