It appears that my long awaited M5ii is the Eos R

[Dave Seeley]

I didn't plan it this way... and was eyeballing the R system as the eventual replacement for my studio setup = 5Dsr... because I love the ML aspects that my M system brings, and wanted that in a studio setting. I got tired of waiting for the rumored high mp R model and picked up the R w kit lens a few months ago... and I'm actually delighted with it.

Unexpectedly, with the rf24-105L, the rf35, ef501.8, and the ef-s 10-18 (just to mitigate 4K crop), it's as portable as my M5 system with almost all the M lenses, and two adapted ef lenses. As a result, it's become my new preferred travel kit.

If you think about the R as the upgraded M5...it has 4K w dpaf, full frame and fast available optics for low light w no crop, a bump in resolution, longer battery life, and actually a better fit for my hands.

I may be kicking myself if the rumors about the M5ii come to fruition and we get IBIS and unhobbled 4K... but in the meantime...

 

[Alan Sh]

Size & weight?

Alan

 

[Ben Herrmann]

Are you saying that the M5 (or M50) are the same size/weight as an EOS R setup with those much larger lenses? Now I'd find that a bit over the top - but I'd love to be proven wrong here.

 

[KEG]

There is hardly any weight difference between 520 grams (M50/15-45) and 1360 (R/24-105).

Are you saying that the M5 (or M50) are the same size/weight as an EOS R setup with those much larger lenses? Now I'd find that a bit over the top - but I'd love to be proven wrong here.

 

[fstopx2]

There is hardly any weight difference between 520 grams (M50/15-45) and 1360 (R/24-105).

Are you saying that the M5 (or M50) are the same size/weight as an EOS R setup with those much larger lenses? Now I'd find that a bit over the top - but I'd love to be proven wrong here.

Thats a minor difference

 

[Charles Sidney]

The weight game: I have a Canon R with 24-105mm RF lens (1434g) and a Canon M5 with 18-150mm EF-M lens (778). For wide angle there is EF 16-35mm f/4 L (848g) and EF-M 11-22mm (277g). Oh, there is also the EF-M 22mm f/2 (124g).

Guess which kit I took on recent tours of France, Spain, southern Italy, and Sicily. I may buy another M5 for backup.

 

[Abu Mahendra]

One specific case, M5 & M15-45 vs. R & RF24-105L. Let's look at the lenses alone. The M lens is f/3.5-6.3 (f/5.6-10 FF total light), while the RF lens is constant f/4. The M lens is plasticky while the RF lens has L-quality build. The RF lens benefits from the dynamic interplay of the RF mount and the IS for an honest four stops of IS. The M lens, while good in the center throughout, never achieves good corners even stopped down. So, the differences are real, make no mistake. The M lens is unquestionably smaller, lighter and cheaper. But you certainly pay for it. There's still no free lunch.

--
>> I'm already lovin' my Canon 35IS lens! <<

 

[mvrbnsn]

Comparing the EOS R to the M system is apples and oranges--a rather substantial difference in price between the two systems.

The R body alone is over $2,000 the last I checked.

I'm sure it is a very capable camera with both R and EF lenses.

Perhaps a more equitable comparison would be between the RP and the M system, as that is at least a little closer in price and even weight (at least for body).

 

[Dave Seeley]

Comparing the EOS R to the M system is apples and oranges--a rather substantial difference in price between the two systems.

Cost via B&H bundle was $2649 for the R kit including a Manfrotto backpack, canon adapter, and an SD card and filters.. If you figure real world costs for the lens and "extras" I'd say the Camera cost me about $1500. Not so much higher than I paid for my M5 at launch.

The R body alone is over $2,000 the last I checked.

I'm sure it is a very capable camera with both R and EF lenses.

Perhaps a more equitable comparison would be between the RP and the M system, as that is at least a little closer in price and even weight (at least for body).

and that would be an interesting comparison, but I wouldn't ever choose the RP, when the R is on offer.

 

[Dave Seeley]

Size & weight?

Alan

The the answer is, I'm not sure, but not at all the difference I'd have imagined. I've actually combined my computer backpack and camera bag into a single backpack that came with my B&H bundle. I'd assumed the backpack would be junk, given that it was not spec's in the bundle, but when it arrived... it was a high end Manfrotto, and I can fit my 15" macbook pro, wacom tablet, and iPad pro, along with all my computer assessories, and the ef 70-300L (when needed).... I used to carry a separate computer backback at the same size, and this one (not two carryons) fits under the seat in front of me, when flying. Very heavy when fully loaded tho. Photo below is that backpack below and sling bag with my M5 system on top, including all the M gear listed in my profile, plus ef35 f2, and ef50 1.8 stm. wider range, but still relatively heavy, and I'll guess about the same bag volume.

The focal range of the R travel system is reduced from the M, with the M11-22, equivalent of 16mm ff, to the M55-200 equivalent of 320mm, so there is a difference there. I'm currently traveling mostly with the 24-105 range of the kit L f4 lens, and the rf35 and ef50 1.8 are for speed and bokeh, not focal range... Unfortunately the ef-s 10-18 cannot be used for wide stills without cropping the full frame image, so even though it give wider focal range, it is 18mp stills. I can travel with my ef 16-35L f4, or ef70-300L, but that increases bulk and weight substantially too, and there are times I will choose to do that.









--
pro photo-illustration - check my website via my profile

 

[Dave Seeley]

Are you saying that the M5 (or M50) are the same size/weight as an EOS R setup with those much larger lenses? Now I'd find that a bit over the top - but I'd love to be proven wrong here.

See the response above Ben.... I suppose I could weight both bags after taking out my computer stuff... but it's apples and oranges, and my preferences are based on finding the trade off preferable.

 

[justmeMN]

51mm-equivalent EF-M lens: $480

50mm RF lens: $2,300

 

[Dave Seeley]

The weight game: I have a Canon R with 24-105mm RF lens (1434g) and a Canon M5 with 18-150mm EF-M lens (778). For wide angle there is EF 16-35mm f/4 L (848g) and EF-M 11-22mm (277g). Oh, there is also the EF-M 22mm f/2 (124g).

Guess which kit I took on recent tours of France, Spain, southern Italy, and Sicily. I may buy another M5 for backup.

And I understand that Charles... I took my M5 kit on many a trip. I've now taken my R kit on a couple of trips, and I'm saying I prefer it on overall analysis. The quality optics and speed are paramount, but also the quality of the slightly larger camera... Oddly, in retrospect only... I kind of hate the feel of the M5 shutter button... The R feels much more like my 5D series, but compact and light.

If Canon could have made the M24-105L f4.... any more compact than the RF version... I believe they would have. That's what we've all be asking for... AND, if they did, it would have taken the aps-C hit on speed. I believe that for Canon, keeping the optics very small in the M series is paramount in their design hierarchy. Don't get me wrong... I love the M system... hence my surprise on the original post title.

 

[Dave Seeley]

51mm-equivalent EF-M lens: $480

50mm RF lens: $2,300

Yes, apples and oranges. I'm holding on to my ef50L 1.2

this comparison much more fair I believe.

51mm, f2.24 equivalent EF-M lens $480 (and a lovely compact lens it is)

50mm EF adapted lens on the R at f1.8 $90, especially good at f2.

--
pro photo-illustration - check my website via my profile

 

[unhappymeal]

There is hardly any weight difference between 520 grams (M50/15-45) and 1360 (R/24-105).

Are you saying that the M5 (or M50) are the same size/weight as an EOS R setup with those much larger lenses? Now I'd find that a bit over the top - but I'd love to be proven wrong here.

There's no real way to do a fair comparison because the 24-105 L is longer, constant aperture and sharper. However, I suspect there would still be significant weight savings if there was an EF-M equivalent lens to the 24-105 L.

 

[mvrbnsn]

off topic but ..by the way your website and work are very nice!

 

[Dave Seeley]

off topic but ..by the way your website and work are very nice!

Thanks!

Lots more straight up photos here

https://www.photographercentral.com...photographer-dave-seeley-boston-massachusetts