Amazing body, shame about the lens selection

I always kind of ignored the EOS-M cameras after the dismal reports about the first few bodies, so I was surprised when I actually took a hard look at the M6 when looking for a replacement for my beloved but aging Panasonic GX1. It looked like the perfect replacement for that camera, and met almost all of my requirements (APS-C sensor, bounceable built-in flash, microphone jack, articulating display, plenty of tactile controls, small size, availability of a fast pancake lens in 35-40mm, etc). All it was missing for me was a built in EVF.

I compared it hard against Sony and Fuji's APS-C rangefinder style ILCs. I hated the Sonys ergonomically, and I just don't click with the retro design of Fujis even though they're wonderful to use. The full compatibility with EF lenses using an adapter pushed me over the edge, I have an EOS 620 film body and several EF lenses. I bought a new black M6 with the kit zoom from one of the grey market sellers for $420, and the 22mm pancake lens from Best Buy because I had a $100 gift card.

My first impression out of the box wasn't positive, it felt like the right strap lug was in a horrible place and made the camera awkward to hold, and the body was entirely plastic (I was somehow under the impression the top and bottom plates were metal). Holding it felt strange, like the grip was too small and impeded by the strap lug. After attaching an Artist & Artisan easy slider strap all worries about the grip disappeared, holding it with the strap folded down and pressed against the body gave it a really nice substantial feeling grip and allowed a hand position that didn't touch the strap lug. I stopped thinking about the superficial plastic when I noticed how very solid and well made this camera feels.

In use the ergonomics are perfect, the two control dials are in the perfect position for fully manual shooting, and having a physical exposure compensation dial is great. I assigned white balance selection to the down (delete) position on the rear dial, and the camera comes with ISO on the up press, allowing really quick changing of these settings. I do wish flash exposure compensation was assignable to a dial or button rather than having to do a long press on the flash button and then navigate a nested menu to reach it.

I prefer to shoot with a single, centered focus point, and the M6 has two different sizes for this focus point. The smaller one (which I prefer) unfortunately only works in one-shot and not servo, it's not a huge deal as I mostly use one shot anyway. I did discover a workaround to quickly switch into servo anyway while otherwise using the small focus point: set the large focusing point and then change AF type to servo in the Q menu, then change the focusing point back to the small one. It will revert back to one shot, but pressing the focus point selection button and flicking the control dial under the exp. comp. dial will flip you back to the larger AF point, with servo already enabled. It's become second nature. You can completely turn off the touch screen feature, and it gets rid of all the touch interface elements when you do and behaves like a normal camera.

As far as image quality goes, it's immediately noticeably better than micro 4/3, the extra dynamic range and high ISO performance is exactly what I was looking for. I'm not the biggest fan of the auto white balance though, it tends to be too cool when using artificial light, and the flash indoors. I think Panasonic handles this a lot better, I felt like I always had complete trust in the GX1's auto white balance. On the M6, use the flash white balance preset if you're bouncing flash indoors and it looks great. Under incandescent light, manually set the white balance. I think Canon have realized this, as the DPR review of the M50 states that it's white balance is no longer as cool as previous M bodies. Maybe there will be a firmware update, but I'm not holding my breath. If you're using RAW this is a non issue.

Autofocus sometimes hunts in very low light, no matter the lens, and the display frame rate drops hard during this. In normal use though the AF is great, even with adapted EF lenses using a third party (commlite) adapter. The 22mm f/2 is really nice, but the kit zoom is very... kit zoom. Speaking of lenses, where are they? The 32mm 1.4 is definitely something I'm going to be buying in the near future, but where is a 24-28mm equiv. fast wide prime? Where is an 80+mm equiv portrait lens? Where are the fixed aperture zooms? The lack of lens selection is a bummer and my biggest problem with the system.

Overall, this body just clicks with me in the same way the GX1 did years ago, and feels like a natural step up from that camera. I hope the lens situation gets better, the release of the 32mm is encouraging.

Just put a 14mm + 50mm on the adapter and voila, there are your M lenses.

Generally speaking, I agree with your review.
.
The perfect lens combo will be different for everyone.  But the complaint about "lens selection" is somewhat diminished when you consider that you can fit ANY LENS with an EF Mount (including EF-S and EF-M) onto the front of this camera. Soooo many lenses to choose from.   If you use the lens adapter, this camera technically handles more lenses than even the new EOS R platform can manage.
.
Some (but not all) of my lens combos with the M6 can be seen below... (and bear in mind, I was poked here by other members for not giving the M a higher score when I reviewed it here myself).  The least favorite was the 85mmL but it still produced a few stunning images as needed.  it's quite a gem.
.

For Surfers, aircraft, wildlife and the moons of Jupiter.

It's back on again right now... 28mm Macro

Meh

Old-Faithful combination

32mm f/1.4 = Perfect combination

Fantastic combination

11-22mm on M6 = EF 16-35mm f/4 on a FF DSLR (just as sharp too).

Dareshooter wrote:

Interesting too see you have the 28mm back on again.I have one arriving in a couple of days,would be interested to hear your thoughts on this lens.

It's a fine lens.  One of the most interesting lenses Canon has made and one of the SHARPEST Canon have made for the EOS M format. I reviewed this lens when it came out if you're interested in my first impressions:  https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4025343

Oh yeah, the lenses. Let's start another topic about the lenses. Let's define what actually is "native adapting".  For those who find this an internal contradiction: don't forget to discuss the size and weight. And the ER aps-c mount of course.

Sometimes i think i move to Sony, not because of the lenses but because of these typical M-forum threads repeating the same things over and over again.

If you can't live with compromises, just buy two or three systems. It is just that easy. If you really care so much about glass the camera isn't the most expensive part of your hobby right?

...some folks who are (were) primarily Micro 4/3 users looking into other brands also.

I'm a multi-system user and I enjoy using my Micro 4/3 cameras (from both Panny and Olympus) very much.  However, on the M43 side of the house, I tend to maintain the older cameras.  The Panny GF1 and GX1 are just two of them and I enjoy their use, very, very much.

Having said that, I originally jumped into the EOS M side of the house after seeing some fire-sale EOS M's listed on eBay 5-6 years ago.  I pounced, really not expecting much, but after the M arrived (with kit lens and flash unit), I was immediately enamored with its performance.  That got me hooked and I then joined the EOS M fold.

But like quite a few others, I've been critical of Canon for not releasing a wide variety of lenses.  When you consider that more bodies (since the original M) have been released as opposed to the small amount of lens offerings (EF-M series), it becomes somewhat embarrassing IMO.  But, that won't stop me from enjoying the M line of cameras.

As for the color tonality capabilities of the M line of cameras, I must say that I prefer how they render colors over how Panasonic does it.  I enjoy the color renderings of various Olympus cameras (much warmer), but at times they tend to favor the red channel a bit too much, in particular with skin tones.  For skin tones (overall), I prefer both the Fuji and Canon camera offerings.  But that's subjective, I know...

So glad to see you like the M6.  I wouldn't mind having the M6, but I'm still maintaining the M, M2, M3, M100, and M50 - so getting another body among the current crop of offerings would be superfluous.  I have no clue what else Canon will offer within the next 6 months in the M line.  Rumors have it that an M5 II will be coming, along with an M100 replacement - who knows.  For those of us who shoot with a variety of systems, we tend to focus our expectations on different camera fronts and that can keep us occupied to be sure.

Autofocus sometimes hunts in very low light, no matter the lens, and the display frame rate drops hard during this. In normal use though the AF is great, even with adapted EF lenses using a third party (commlite) adapter. The 22mm f/2 is really nice, but the kit zoom is very... kit zoom. Speaking of lenses, where are they? The 32mm 1.4 is definitely something I'm going to be buying in the near future, but where is a 24-28mm equiv. fast wide prime? Where is an 80+mm equiv portrait lens? Where are the fixed aperture zooms? The lack of lens selection is a bummer and my biggest problem with the system.

I, too, came from m4/3.  My first was a Lumix GF1, but my favorite was my Olympus E-M5.  I had a great set of lenses (17/1.8, 20/1.7, 45/1.8, 75/1.8, 12-35/2.8, 75-300/4.8-6.7), but the physical limitations of the small sensor led me to try Fuji.  With the X-T1, I started with one of the greatest kit lenses, the 18-55mm f/2.8-4, and a decent somewhat-fast tele zoom, the 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8, and then added a pretty good prime (35mm f/1.4.)  I never really liked the physical performance of the 35 (slow and loud) and couldn't really afford the really good XF lenses.  Canon colors have always been my favorite and the M5 form finally fit what I was looking for, so I swapped.  I knew going in that the native lenses were lacking -- though, the new 32/1.4 was a big add -- but that relatively cheap EF/EF-S lenses could be adapted in the mean time with good performance.

I try to keep my expectations for the M system realistic.  Unlike Fuji, Canon has a FF lineup, where they will put the best lenses.  I expected the M to get lenses that compromise performance ('speed', in particular) for size.  However, there are a few lenses that I know they could do, which would satisfy me and still meet those requirements.  The first is to copy the model of the XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.  It's small, but relatively fast, and has IS.  Do it.  For Canon, something like a 17-52mm f/2.8-4 or 16-50mm f/2.8-4 would be great.  After that, a 50mm f/1.8.  Finally, somewhat faster tele zoom.  Again, the XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 would be a decent model to copy.  For size, I'd even settle for something like a 50-150mm f/3.5-4.5.  Those three shouldn't be too hard to make and the resulting lenses shouldn't be too big or too expensive for M users.

carpandean wrote:

Autofocus sometimes hunts in very low light, no matter the lens, and the display frame rate drops hard during this. In normal use though the AF is great, even with adapted EF lenses using a third party (commlite) adapter. The 22mm f/2 is really nice, but the kit zoom is very... kit zoom. Speaking of lenses, where are they? The 32mm 1.4 is definitely something I'm going to be buying in the near future, but where is a 24-28mm equiv. fast wide prime? Where is an 80+mm equiv portrait lens? Where are the fixed aperture zooms? The lack of lens selection is a bummer and my biggest problem with the system.

I, too, came from m4/3. My first was a Lumix GF1, but my favorite was my Olympus E-M5. I had a great set of lenses (17/1.8, 20/1.7, 45/1.8, 75/1.8, 12-35/2.8, 75-300/4.8-6.7), but the physical limitations of the small sensor led me to try Fuji. With the X-T1, I started with one of the greatest kit lenses, the 18-55mm f/2.8-4, and a decent somewhat-fast tele zoom, the 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8, and then added a pretty good prime (35mm f/1.4.) I never really liked the physical performance of the 35 (slow and loud) and couldn't really afford the really good XF lenses. Canon colors have always been my favorite and the M5 form finally fit what I was looking for, so I swapped. I knew going in that the native lenses were lacking -- though, the new 32/1.4 was a big add -- but that relatively cheap EF/EF-S lenses could be adapted in the mean time with good performance.

Thank you. I am always interested in M43 and Fuji. You swiped it away. Canon M appears to be very practical.

I try to keep my expectations for the M system realistic. Unlike Fuji, Canon has a FF lineup, where they will put the best lenses. I expected the M to get lenses that compromise performance ('speed', in particular) for size. However, there are a few lenses that I know they could do, which would satisfy me and still meet those requirements. The first is to copy the model of the XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4. It's small, but relatively fast, and has IS. Do it. For Canon, something like a 17-52mm f/2.8-4 or 16-50mm f/2.8-4 would be great. After that, a 50mm f/1.8. Finally, somewhat faster tele zoom. Again, the XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 would be a decent model to copy. For size, I'd even settle for something like a 50-150mm f/3.5-4.5. Those three shouldn't be too hard to make and the resulting lenses shouldn't be too big or too expensive for M users.

Well said. However, Canon does not seem to have as much interest in EFM as we have. How long did it take to release 32mm 1.4 that had been waited for a long time since Canon EOS D30?

Dareshooter wrote:

Interesting too see you have the 28mm back on again.I have one arriving in a couple of days,would be interested to hear your thoughts on this lens.

I got the 28mm to go on the M100 back in April 2018. Took a few shots and forgot it. But when you think about it is an IS lens, equivalent to a 44 mm -- a normal FF lens!

It is slow, but with IS, quite acceptable and I found the IQ to be pretty close to lenses costing 3 or 4 times as much.

The details are quite amazing. Macro lenses tend to have a great resolution.

I hope this lens serves you well.