Canon EOS M5 real-world sample gallery

iamatrix, I don't subscribe to the notion that "if you're not first you're last." There's an odd mix of compartmentalized relativism mixed with absolutism here. So relative to others it's not as good (IQ only here since usability is apparently unimportant or too complex to bother discussing) and not being as good means it's bad? No. There comes a point where a threshold is met and image quality becomes amazing. Better and worse within that realm may still exist, but Canon's IQ from this sensor is a modern miracle...among other miracles. So, being "sub-par" (never makes sense to me....isn't under par a good thing?) doesn't mean bad or even not amazing. Somewhat more amazing is still amazing, which leaves room for the marginal differences you're taking about.
Furthermore, if Canon didn't make cameras there'd be little push to incorporate touchscreen a that actually work and DPAF wouldn't exist. Canon just incorporated on sensor ADC so give it another gen or two and see.

Also, with the M5 Canon has signaled its serious commitment to the M line. There's just no other interpretation. Even so, EF and EF-S lenses are essentially native in this context because they lose no functionality when attached to the M5. Just as some cameras make better use of some lenses there will always be caveats to using a lens on a given body, but losing the new 5 axis IS isn't a big deal....this isn't meant for pro video anyway.

Are you a Canon shareholder or are you aspiring to be Canon's ambassador?
I've been browsing your profile and I have not seen photos there

@jorgepr

He is just a super fanboi, so no point arguing with him.

The m5 is like the m3, nothing like the output of previous 18mp sensor. The color is more neutral now. So it may be more accurate but most prefer the processed interpretations of the samples shown.

He's Carey's mum, I think.

iamatrix, the ability to record and watch video at home is still one of the great advancements in entertainment. Still amazing. Just because VHS was an advancement in the miniaturization of existing tape recording technologies that were low rez and analog doesn't make the technology any less meaningful, especially in the context of the time period and what has been built upon that foundation. Digital photography only a few years was dominated by discussions about whether digital was better than film. Once we passed that threshold each advance is giving us abilities no consumer has ever had access to. Threshold of usefulness was the operative word in my statement, at that point fewer and fewer people will see the advantage of further improvement. So better is still better, but the pool of those who notice the difference keeps shrinking. We're all still beneficiaries. We all greatly benefit from competition between Sony and Canon. Without that the shrinking market would shrivel.

Canon pushed sensor AF tech way harder than Sony. Sony can still barely implement a touchscreen that's worth having. Thank your lucky stars Canon keeps up their game and shows the market what usability, reliability, and customer service means.

To other background noise, that's it? Ad hominem attack? I take that to mean you're galled by a cogent statement that simply angers you on some instinctive level and have nothing of use to contribute.

To Barney, I complimented you and your staff. I think the phrase you were looking for is "thank you." -- Carey's mum

I have to agree, I have owned Fuji X-E2, X-T1 and now X-T2 and have 7 lens. Have not had a single issue with any of them until recently when I dropped my X-T2 with 10-24mm on it caving in the side panel. This was self inflicted now failure of the equipment. Took it to my local shop, they sent it to Fuji, quote back with 24hours for insurance company. 5 days to complete the work. Feedback from camera shop was that in there experience Fuji Uk is one of the quickest to respond and complete work. The work also comes with a full 1 year as new warranty so if the repair has subsequent issues they will make good. Can't argue with that. So far so impressed. You were unlucky but I think that it may have been an outlier.

You are in the minority. Most I know prefer Canon colors. Sony is usually last. It is all a matter of opinion and RAW shooter can adjust to what they like, but Sony colors out of the camera are truly frustrating for me. But that is what 'profiles' are for.

Well.
Actually, most pictures would have looked a little better with AWB (IMHO) -- this would turn them a little "warmer" and thus more pleasing. A little in the direction of the provided ACR conversions. ;-)
Actually everybody can download Canon's DPP to simulate in-camera output using different picture parameters...
===
Edit:
Best examples are images #11 -- VW and #26 -- House: If you switch to "AWB", the colors change to what the ACR conversion in the gallery looks like.

The funny thing is all the comments about "great Canon colors" or "bad Canon colors" and how it's been going downhill for Canon in recent cameras (or the other way around)... only to discover that it's probably just down to a good/bad (according to your tastes) choice of WB setting...

Priceless!

@SimonSander could you direct me towards those heaps of glowing reviews of the M5?

Somehow Google can't find them...

When judging the pictures on two calibrated monitors, many of them seems to have a greenish color cast. This might be the raw converter settings as much as the camera itself.

And what is that light years? Have you checked the 80D, 5D4, 1DX2 and M5 sensors? I don't see the light years difference...

And Olympus in body stabilisation! Wouldn't it be nice to cherry pick a camera?

Well this Sony Sensor isn't doing very well, and this is a 2000€ camera body!

https://www.dpreview.com/samples/7714075146/heliskiing-british-columbia-with-the-olympus-om-d-e-m1-ii

New generation Canon sensors are quite nice. Lenses are cheap and not too bad (ok there could be some more native ones). User interface is fun. Who exactly needs a Sony sensor instead?

Even the out of camera jpegs have that Canon look about them. They certainly look a lot better than Sony jpeg colours.

OOC jpegs are effectively neutral - like Sony. Look at extrerior shots with grass and sky #2, 7, 11, 15, 21, 26. If you posted those on a Sony thread you would have tons of trolling about 'terrible Sony colours' in minutes.

Ugh, I mean Canon color is ok, but it's not mind blowing. Years ago I would say Canon was the first out of the gate with really good natural colors and skin tones. That being said even dpreview points out that greens and the like are a bit on the poor side and Canon reds often blow out the color channel. If you want to see what incredible color rendition looks like try shooting Fuji: you will go back to your Canon pictures and think they were shot with a phone camera. And I am not saying this to be an a**, it's because I went from a Canon 6D to a Fuji XT10 and the colors is nothing short of incredible.

you could always buy a 2000€ Olympus with a Sony Sensor. Look at the noise on these shots : https://www.dpreview.com/samples/7714075146/heliskiing-british-columbia-with-the-olympus-om-d-e-m1-ii

"Different CFAs capture colors/spectrum differently" yes this is true on surface level but all the information already there underlying in raw file, your raw have 14bit depth not for nothing. If you know what are you doing you can do literally do anything to your photo's colour rendition.

Actually, it means that not all information is in the RAW file.

It's laughable to think that you can get any color response from any CFA.

That might be true, but how much unnecessary work are you willing to do. Good color is far more important for 98% of the viewers. I never heard a "normal" person complain about DR or even resolution.

If only colour science were that easy. Stick a didymium filter in front of your camera and it removes a narrow band that we see as yellow. It doen't remove red or green (which combined we see as yellow) so not all yellows are reduced just pure spectrum yellow. What you end up with is only certain natural clours being affected. Good luck getting back to the original colours after that. CFA filters have a similar issue as does Sigma foveon silicon filtering giving all cameras natively different colour. This is also why some lenses have better colours (flatter spectral response usually) so its not really all adjustable in RAW.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

@pacnwhobbyist My post makes so much more sense then your pointless reply, at very least.

You mean behind in dual pixel AF or behind in touchscreen which Sony and Fuji cannot get into any upmarket camera for what hack of a reason? Or behind in using obscure xtrans and heavy smoothing algorithms with sugar colors like Fuji? Or behind Sony who still think focus with working aperture is a great idea? Or behind in affordable lenses? A wide and a 23mm cost at Fuji as much as an M5 with 11-22 and 22 included and well, the Canon system is much more portable and much easier to use. Can there even be a behind compared to the a6x00 user interface?

Do you really believe that there is some daily relevant difference between APS-C sensors which does not pale in comparison to using a full frame system for full quality? That is like discussing if Mc Donalds or Burger King do the best burgers in the world.

The M5 is missing native lenses. True. And if you want 4K. But it offers a lot in regards to ease of user interface compared to Fuji and Sony and it is no 1800 Euro either.

I had XT-1 and sold it because for what I needed (landscapes) my other camera EOS M3 was in fact much better (IQ wise).

Fuji is overrated (sometimes I am wondering if those positive opinions about Fuji aren't actually paid by Fuji :-) ), and when I saw output from XT-1 I was very disappointed. Not mentioning the fact that lenses are overpriced.

Because it says Canon on it?

Okay.

How about the lenses? The UI? Ability to natively adapt Canon DSLR lenses?

How about being able to touch-focus lock in video, something Sony forgot in their A6500? Or you know, usable menus and ergonomics?

IQ is good, but it's the rest of the system that puts it over the top.

Canon, and to a larger extent, Nikon, or too steeped into the history of the company and photography in general. I've been a Nikon user, I've shot with Canon, both have viable systems, but anything that helps the photog to capture faster, more consistent, and, allow for flexibility in workflow will win long term. The big guys have lenses, but, with resolutions continuing to rise, they are exceeding the resolving power of the older glass. So, the race to create better lenses is on. I'm leaving Nikon...dating Sony. And I can use Canon glass ..

Their colour processing at same picture styles are identical from the 550D to 5DIV. You can see it yourself in dp image samples (focus on colour patches as it represents how the camera renders every basic colour = colour science). This is misinformation about the 70D and successor models.

I have the 6D and never rely on the OOC jpegs. Canon can't for some odd reason output a balanced, detailed and dynamic photos directly from Camera. Canon's metering is also often off and under-exposed. I guess every camera as it's merits and flaws and for me at least Canon OOC was never as good as the competition or even their own point and shoot.

I agree. Starting with the M3 and the most recent Rebels, colors look bad. The FF line is different, fortunately.

@mmcrfine
Your experience differs from mine. The four EOS bodies I've used (650D, M2, 7D2, 6D) all have good AE and much better JPEG algorithms than my PowerShot S120, whose JPEG engine is unusable outdoors because it gives up on highlights way too easily, and unusable at higher ISOs because the noise reduction is more aggressive than a starving hyena.

Which is sad, because the point-and-shoot S120 is the one body where I still wish I could use OOC JPEG on a regular basis.

Maybe I need to learn how to adjust the JPEG settings. I use standard/ flat profile and don't adjust the colour correction mode and always use RAW as well.

@Stu 5, yes, I bothered. Where did I refer to price and where did I say one is the "answer" to another (and why do they have to answer each other?)?

Howard so why did you compare the two cameras to each other then when you say you did bother to look at the prices? Why not compare the Canon to the A6300? The Canon body cost $979. The A6500 cost $1400. A difference of over $400. i.e. you compared the Canon to a camera body that cost more than 40% extra. Of course the A6500 is better. What did you expect. A more fair comparison might have been the A6300 body at $1000.

As long as people like Canon, they will buy Canon whatever the price is. Performance is not the only reason to buy a product. There are lots of other considerations, like product style, reliability, reputation etc. etc.

Two generations "ahead" is pure exaggeration... :) Only video siginificantly exceeds the Canon... IQ for all intents and purposes is pretty much the same... If you honestly believe a $1400 camera will make you a better photograper or enable you to capture better photos... then go ahead and buy the A6500 ... Who knows... Sony could definitely use your business...

It looks and tastes like a nice ripe orange and well cooked steak. A lot of people like oranges and steak. Canon will sell a lot of these.

Corner to corner sharpness is not usually the characteristics of a body. ... but I might be wrong. :)
All the other aspects could be.

There are so few lens tests that people are obviously going to use any gallery to inspect the lens as well as the camera. However thanks for the reply Samuel Spencer.

At least some movement would be nice, if this is the EOS M camera which T/trumps all others. :)

Since the 18-150 is a new lens, we will produce a sample gallery for it. Stay tuned.

Yes, however, in most cases, folks just shoot away and the results are that fog or hazy conditions can really ruin shots. Here's an excellent article that talks about all of this... (copy and paste if it doesn't have a link to it).

http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/tip/4328/capture-photos-foggy-misty-conditions/

Are you on a good monitor at home or a junky one at work? the cheap monitors at my job are TN so they only have 6 bits per pixel and dither to get other colors which looks like noise.

jay jay02: That has a flaw. To really find what I need and like, the hiring would take about 5-10 days. That´s a price of some new lens I could have instead.
I found I don´t like Nikon gear after about 20 days. Too much money for hiring. But at least I know what to expect from these machines. It´s rather size and weight decision. How commited am I to take 6D with two or three meaty lenses instead of small M with 22 pancake in my pocket, and sometimes add little bag for other lenses.

junk1: One from these "better ones" - Calibrated IPS. It´s not really noise what I see in the grass, and the ACR processed shot is "million times better" to my eyes (regarding grass). For the rest, to a point I can recognize noise and per-pixel posterization. I´m looking at the noise here. It´s not really bad, but maybe "not enaugh" performance. Hard to decide.

I'm in the same boat. Looking to upgrade my ancient canon APS-C dslr. Can't decide if I should get the 6D or M5. I've never used an electronic viewfinder so I have no idea if I'll like it or not. The photos I see of the new canon 16-35mm on a FF just look so perfect to me, and I know I'd have a hard time replicating that on aps-c, but I can't imagine lugging the 6D with a big heavy lens and a sturdy tripod around with me on any adventure that requires non-photography gear (backpacking, or climbing). The other camera in contention is the RX100 just because it can fit in my pocket and go everywhere with me.

Decisions....

Jared, it seems I´m heading to the end of my torture. Thinking things trough, I´m rather staying with M line. I have no use for optical viewfinder, and as I am perfectionist, I need to get my shot sharp where I need it to be sharp, exposed as I want it exposed. OVF will not do these for me. I would have to constantly chimp (put my eye off, playback the photo, and reshoot). Also Macro and telephoto work will be more difficult and expensive. I rather sacrifice some of the look and image quality for usability, convenience, size, and Live feed from the camera, so when I take a shot, it will need to be JUST ONE SHOT. Also I can imagine taking this camera with me everywhere. For example shooting small stuff on the table, elbows on the table, holding the camera heading down, I cannot imagine myself doing that with 6D and some "severe" lens. A no-go. I might jump to FF Canon MILC later, which will be expensive, but I will not be able to live with 6D. Oh, hard time!

JaredTarzan - If you do climbing you'll need something that is quick and easy to use, lightweight and compact. It will also have to be very sturdy as it's likely to be knocked occasionally, and fairly weatherproof. The Sony RX100 sounds like it would do the job, but make sure you get the accessory handgrip, as the little Sony cameras are notoriously slippery and easily dropped!

MyReality -
Your reality is not most people's reality. Not many of us restrict ourselves to small prints. Many of us shoot subjects such as sports and wildlife that often require heavy cropping. And then we blow those images up to fill a 4K monitor, or to be published as a double-page spread, or to print up to 20x16". That's why we NEED high resolution.

Maybe I have. Would that remove the difference between the OOC jpegs and the WB corrected images?

You mean you prefer oversaturated colors with too much microcontrast applied?

You can get that with a Canon too if you like. Just create your custom JPEG profile. Like you can tone down other camera's from their standard settings the same way.

Luckily, different brands have different profiles.

Speaking about tube TVs - I loved the color.

Trinitron!