Canon EOS M Series Cameras

Many people will disagree.
Considering the M50 will sell for around £530, I have a M-EF adaptor and quite a few canon lenses I’m hardly going to get much for the same money if I go for a different system.
So it isn’t really an option that’s practical.
A Sony a6000 or a6300 sells for similar price yet offer better spec and iq.

And you can use your Canon glasses on them with adapter.

You only need a body and adapter. So price wise very similar to m50
 
A Sony a6000 or a6300 sells for similar price yet offer better spec and iq.

And you can use your Canon glasses on them with adapter.

You only need a body and adapter. So price wise very similar to m50

This ignores the difference between ‘an adaptor’ and an adaptor.

Most people buying Sony cameras and adaptors for all their legacy lenses end up selling and buying native Sony lenses, because the focus speed isn’t comparable with what they’re used to and indeed what they need.

All the canon lenses I’ve used on my M5 are snappy and perfectly within the parameters for reasonable use. Then there’s the flash system, working with the files, which all fit in perfectly with the rest of my EOS system (which includes a film camera).

My mirrorless journey started with Fuji, but having a one make system is a much more comfortable existence even if the M5 isn’t ‘the best’.
 
Last edited:
This ignores the difference between ‘an adaptor’ and an adaptor.

Most people buying Sony cameras and adaptors for all their legacy lenses end up selling and buying native Sony lenses, because the focus speed isn’t comparable with what they’re used to and indeed what they need.

All the canon lenses I’ve used on my M50 are snappy and perfectly within the parameters for reasonable use. Then there’s the flash system, working with the files, which all fit in perfectly with the rest of my EOS system (which includes a film camera).

My mirrorless journey started with Fuji, but having a one make system is a much more comfortable existence even if the M5 isn’t ‘the best’.
I've used canon flashes on my Sony fine but I don't use ttl I guess.

I just feel that it's a risk and pointless investing in canon mirrorless.


I will once they convert a 5d type camera to mirrorless and hope they have lots of native glasses for it.
 
I've used canon flashes on my Sony fine but I don't use ttl I guess.

I just feel that it's a risk and pointless investing in canon mirrorless.


I will once they convert a 5d type camera to mirrorless and hope they have lots of native glasses for it.
That’ll be a very long time.
At the current rate of lens releases, a decent set of mirror less FF lenses would take at least 3 or 4 years to build, probably longer.
And that’s based on the notion they’re planning a FF mirrorless and they’d want to build pro lenses for it.
Neither of which seem likely in the near future.
 
I've used canon flashes on my Sony fine but I don't use ttl I
I use ETTL and Manual and sometimes a mix of the 2, and I want a single flash ecosystem that’ll do everything I want from ‘run n gun’ to full studio kit.
Again having a single system that just works means more than looking for a single bit of kit that scores brownie points.
 
Why a risk ,it’s a fast growing system ( not quiet as fast as Nikon’s new model a month cameras ) but it works nicely . There are a few things that could be improved but I’m sure they will with time . A full frame mirror less canon that also takes ef.s and e.f lenses without a adapter would knock the other brands for six ,and you can bet your last pound it’s already under development . Like most of these hi tech companies they only feed us snippets to keep the sales market buoyant .
 
The reason we need a adaptor is I think due to two factors the throat size and rear element distance to sensor Phil ,I’m sure they can engineer a extended front to overcome it . Going to have a play day today with all my available lenses ,getting hooked on the M series now ,I actually had fun with mine yesterday and very impressed with the results
 
Why a risk ,it’s a fast growing system ( not quiet as fast as Nikon’s new model a month cameras ) but it works nicely . There are a few things that could be improved but I’m sure they will with time . A full frame mirror less canon that also takes ef.s and e.f lenses without a adapter would knock the other brands for six ,and you can bet your last pound it’s already under development . Like most of these hi tech companies they only feed us snippets to keep the sales market buoyant .
fast?

No its not. The lens lineup has barely changed since the first mirrorless apc body was released.

Yes you can adapt canon glass but its never going to be as fast and accurate as native.

The reason why you got to adapt is because of the flang distance and you can bet your mortgage that the FF canon mirrorless would need an adapter for EF lenses too.

What i feel is that Canon are scared that if they went FF canon mirrorless, it would upset existing EF DSLR users but for Canon to look and compete 5 years from now, they really need to start taking mirrorless seriously.

@Phil V granted you use your flashes for run and gun. So do i really but in manual mode mostly :)

i have a mix of YN flashes and canon. Now moving over to godox stuff.

For my shooting style and needs, TTL is not a deal breaker for me so i can use my existing flashes on any camera really.

Would you guys jump on a canon FF mirrorless camera or stick with DSLR?
 
A Sony a6000 or a6300 sells for similar price yet offer better spec and iq.

And you can use your Canon glasses on them with adapter.

You only need a body and adapter. So price wise very similar to m50

I disagree 100%. I had a A6000 for two years. AF was appalling using my Canon glass, to the point where MF was much, much quicker. Im not sure how you know the Sony's offer better IQ though. My A6000 was not as good as my 80D (i had both at the same time). The A6000/63000 also doesn't have a flip out screen, touch screen, or a few other things i want.
The A6300 also seems to be about £150 more than the M50.

This is from experience and not from just reading about them.

Canon are now saying the want to get behind mirrorless more, so we can expect more native glass. Hopefully they wont do what Sony did and give up on the crop sector once their FF took off.
 
Last edited:
I’m dipping my feet in the water with this and trying and testing each stage ,also learning the cans and cant’s of the system .i mainly do wildlife in any form so far I have macro covered ,and now close static birds to . If I can find a camera / lens combo that will do acceptable b.i.f then I can’t see any reason to stick with big heavy gear . My main thoughts from yesterday run along the hey this is fun . I also have to take into account advancing age and although in very good health for someone in there 70’s I have to admit that heavy gear carrying is a pain in the arse so a lightweight accurate alternative will keep me going
 
Would you guys jump on a canon FF mirrorless camera or stick with DSLR?

....On the basis of owning and using Canon 70D (now sold), 7D Mark II, 5D Mark IV, D-SLRs and mirrorless EOS M5, and occasionally having a play with friends' mirrorless Sony and Pentax, I would very much prefer to stick to D-SLR. But I am open to what future full-size mirrorless bodies Canon might have to offer, providing they will still mount my Supertelephoto L lenses and Canon Extenders.

I simply don't enjoy the mirrorless viewfinders, nor handling the smaller size bodies. My M5 can be very useful for subjects such as insects but now I have a 5D Mark IV I doubt if that will continue and I will probably sell my M5 and EF Adapter this year.

I'm fortunate enough not to be led by budget but by what enables me best in my continued efforts to improve my wildlife photography.
 
Last edited:
fast?

No its not. The lens lineup has barely changed since the first mirrorless apc body was released.

Yes you can adapt canon glass but its never going to be as fast and accurate as native.

The reason why you got to adapt is because of the flang distance and you can bet your mortgage that the FF canon mirrorless would need an adapter for EF lenses too.

What i feel is that Canon are scared that if they went FF canon mirrorless, it would upset existing EF DSLR users but for Canon to look and compete 5 years from now, they really need to start taking mirrorless seriously.

@Phil V granted you use your flashes for run and gun. So do i really but in manual mode mostly :)

i have a mix of YN flashes and canon. Now moving over to godox stuff.

For my shooting style and needs, TTL is not a deal breaker for me so i can use my existing flashes on any camera really.

Would you guys jump on a canon FF mirrorless camera or stick with DSLR?

Where do you actually want to go with this?

The M journey has been interesting. The original M kit offering was Body/18-55 lens/90EX speedlite and the EF adapter - £500+

Then a kit as above with the 22mm

Essentially a 650D without a mirror.

Not a big seller till Canon dropped the price and Argos flogged them at £199.99 - boom out the door they flew.

The progress has been a shambles but finally Canon are ramping up things. Vlogging and a younger generation keen to ‘broadcast’ their lives is creating a new dynamic and it would seem Canon are finally waking up to that evolving customer base who are unlikely to either want or need a vast range of lenses.

I have an M body with Magic Lantern which I use for video, an M5 and an M6.

I have film kit (Pentax) going back to the early 80s (MX/ME/LX) and lenses.
Canon SLR Film/Digital and medium format.

Foliwing a full on stroke in December 2016 my ability to carry kit made the Canon M series kit even more sensible, light and compact and flexible.
I looked at Sony and Fuji kit but I was not comfortable with them.

In seeking IQ, I see that as being the image itself not perceived from the price of the glass. I like Ansel Adams work and whilst I think he would find moderrn kit optically superior, I am sure his skill would shine through on a simple kit lens.

Thankfully you are living in a time of choice so try whatever takes your fancy, but tearing down kit you do not use whilst people who do use it are saying it meets their meeds, is trite.

I would be more interested in your full experience with the the kit you have or will buy,
 
Where do you actually want to go with this?

The M journey has been interesting. The original M kit offering was Body/18-55 lens/90EX speedlite and the EF adapter - £500+

Then a kit as above with the 22mm

Essentially a 650D without a mirror.

Not a big seller till Canon dropped the price and Argos flogged them at £199.99 - boom out the door they flew.

The progress has been a shambles but finally Canon are ramping up things. Vlogging and a younger generation keen to ‘broadcast’ their lives is creating a new dynamic and it would seem Canon are finally waking up to that evolving customer base who are unlikely to either want or need a vast range of lenses.

I have an M body with Magic Lantern which I use for video, an M5 and an M6.

I have film kit (Pentax) going back to the early 80s (MX/ME/LX) and lenses.
Canon SLR Film/Digital and medium format.

Foliwing a full on stroke in December 2016 my ability to carry kit made the Canon M series kit even more sensible, light and compact and flexible.
I looked at Sony and Fuji kit but I was not comfortable with them.

In seeking IQ, I see that as being the image itself not perceived from the price of the glass. I like Ansel Adams work and whilst I think he would find moderrn kit optically superior, I am sure his skill would shine through on a simple kit lens.

Thankfully you are living in a time of choice so try whatever takes your fancy, but tearing down kit you do not use whilst people who do use it are saying it meets their meeds, is trite.

I would be more interested in your full experience with the the kit you have or will buy,

Yes when i mean IQ i mean the sensor IQ and currently sony are top dog in sensor IQ.

I currently have the 5d4 but hardly use it due its size and weight and now us mainly a7r3 and A9.

Both are superior camera's to canon's dslr's nevermind there mirrorless offerings.

iq, handling and features is a cut above canon and all i wish for is the same tech/features if not more so then sony for there mirrorless lineup.

Instead they make one of the worse line of mirrorless offerings out of sony,panasoni, olympus and fiuji.

Lack of lenses is the real problem. If you adapting EF lenses u dont get the same identical af and accuracy as native . Plus you lose the size and weigh advantages of it altogether.

You say you wanted a lighter setup? indeed it is a lighter setup when using native not adapted glass. You would get a better setup and more choices from another brand.

Each to their own though and choices are good but for me, i choose based on my needs and whats available across the market. Not just on sony land or canon land, but all manufacturers.

For me , Canon's mirrorless offerings are a joke in my opinion. i know they could easily develope a xh1/a7mk3 type camera but i feel that many loyal canon users would not like that as canon may stop/slow down on making new glasses and bodies for DSLR in favour of the mirrorless offerings.

Exciting times but would you lot consider a A7mk3 type canon camera that had to use a new mount?
 
I've done a bit of a U Turn and have an M3, 11-22, 22 and 50 1.8 STM with adapter in the classifieds if anyone is interested.
 
Exciting times but would you lot consider a A7mk3 type canon camera that had to use a new mount?

Like Robin I want a DSLR size body as I mainly use my Sigma 150-600mm sport when shooting Canon and am currently on the look out for a 400mm f4 MKII DO, both of which (I imagine) wouldn't handle well on a A7III size body. Unlike Robin though I rather like EVF as it's handy for video plus WYSIWYG. The A9 would be perfect for me but it's limited by large lens choice at the moment. I am more than happy with the M5 as apart from using the adapted 70-300mm L I use it as a very light travel setup with the 11-22mm, 22mm, 18-55mm and 55-200mm EF-M lenses.
 
Yes when i mean IQ i mean the sensor IQ and currently sony are top dog in sensor IQ.

I currently have the 5d4 but hardly use it due its size and weight and now us mainly a7r3 and A9.

Both are superior camera's to canon's dslr's nevermind there mirrorless offerings.

iq, handling and features is a cut above canon and all i wish for is the same tech/features if not more so then sony for there mirrorless lineup.

Instead they make one of the worse line of mirrorless offerings out of sony,panasoni, olympus and fiuji.

Lack of lenses is the real problem. If you adapting EF lenses u dont get the same identical af and accuracy as native . Plus you lose the size and weigh advantages of it altogether.

You say you wanted a lighter setup? indeed it is a lighter setup when using native not adapted glass. You would get a better setup and more choices from another brand.

Each to their own though and choices are good but for me, i choose based on my needs and whats available across the market. Not just on sony land or canon land, but all manufacturers.

For me , Canon's mirrorless offerings are a joke in my opinion. i know they could easily develope a xh1/a7mk3 type camera but i feel that many loyal canon users would not like that as canon may stop/slow down on making new glasses and bodies for DSLR in favour of the mirrorless offerings.

Exciting times but would you lot consider a A7mk3 type canon camera that had to use a new mount?

Thanks but it all comes back ti a simple issue.

You believe that your image quality is on sensor iq when the reality is that most of that qhzlity these days are not visually noticeable and come down to electronic tests with optical testing in conjunction with optical resolution testing.

For me my IQ testing is in what the whole process brings me - the final picture that I choose to print myself on a Pixma Pro100S or via a print service.

Maybe my shooting skills are crap but I am more than happy with the p-poor pictures I get with my s***e Canon kit.

So back to yhe question - what are you trying to achieve with your post? Is it that super duper sensors make better pictures? I prefer my photography to be about the picture, which I can achieve with a 50 year old film camera.

At this time the M series kit, including the 11-22/22/55-200 lenses cover 90% of my needs,mounted on an M5 means I am ‘good to go’ with as much kit as I need. Yes I need more prime glass but I can still use my other kit, incl Pentax manual lenses that are 35 years old.

Chasing the sensor dragon does not mean getting better output..
 
Thanks but it all comes back ti a simple issue.

You believe that your image quality is on sensor iq when the reality is that most of that qhzlity these days are not visually noticeable and come down to electronic tests with optical testing in conjunction with optical resolution testing.

For me my IQ testing is in what the whole process brings me - the final picture that I choose to print myself on a Pixma Pro100S or via a print service.

Maybe my shooting skills are crap but I am more than happy with the p-poor pictures I get with my s***e Canon kit.

So back to yhe question - what are you trying to achieve with your post? Is it that super duper sensors make better pictures? I prefer my photography to be about the picture, which I can achieve with a 50 year old film camera.

At this time the M series kit, including the 11-22/22/55-200 lenses cover 90% of my needs,mounted on an M5 means I am ‘good to go’ with as much kit as I need. Yes I need more prime glass but I can still use my other kit, incl Pentax manual lenses that are 35 years old.

Chasing the sensor dragon does not mean getting better output..
I myself print a lot. I have the same printer as you actually and have printed some stunners on it!

when you start to play around with the raws, the IQ of the sensor plays a big role. I can now shoot a single exposure of a very contrast landscape image and pull back the shadows or highlights without a worry on sony sensors(although the 5d4 is great too)

Shooting at ISO 6400 or 12800 is now feasable for printing and showing on the web and pixel peeping. Pre 5d4 camera's i was afraid t shoot and print images at 6400 on the 5d3 for example and thats a FF sensor so imagine the crop sensor on these mirrorless bodies..

Dont underestimate the tech behind other mirrorless.

For example, eye AF. You need to try it yourself to see how useful that is. IBIS. again, this is such an amazing and actually standard feature for camera bodies, why doesnt Canon have this by default?

EVF quality has increased dramatically over the years and the AF? i could write a whole post about how much AF has advanced.

The thing is. i look at a product and what it can do for me vs the price and perforhmance of it.

I myself find better value on using sony mirrorless when you compare the tech/iq vs price.

Today's tech allows you to capture that same 50 year old picture easier. I dont have to worry about what film ISO i am using, worry about AF, worry about destroying the highlights or shadows or having to stack film exposures together etc etc.

Todays tech allows me to just concentrate more on my composition and story telling. Less about the camera's ability to capture my story.

And for me only, the Sony does this
 
I myself print a lot. I have the same printer as you actually and have printed some stunners on it!

when you start to play around with the raws, the IQ of the sensor plays a big role. I can now shoot a single exposure of a very contrast landscape image and pull back the shadows or highlights without a worry on sony sensors(although the 5d4 is great too)

Shooting at ISO 6400 or 12800 is now feasable for printing and showing on the web and pixel peeping. Pre 5d4 camera's i was afraid t shoot and print images at 6400 on the 5d3 for example and thats a FF sensor so imagine the crop sensor on these mirrorless bodies..

Dont underestimate the tech behind other mirrorless.

For example, eye AF. You need to try it yourself to see how useful that is. IBIS. again, this is such an amazing and actually standard feature for camera bodies, why doesnt Canon have this by default?

EVF quality has increased dramatically over the years and the AF? i could write a whole post about how much AF has advanced.

The thing is. i look at a product and what it can do for me vs the price and perforhmance of it.

I myself find better value on using sony mirrorless when you compare the tech/iq vs price.

Today's tech allows you to capture that same 50 year old picture easier. I dont have to worry about what film ISO i am using, worry about AF, worry about destroying the highlights or shadows or having to stack film exposures together etc etc.

Todays tech allows me to just concentrate more on my composition and story telling. Less about the camera's ability to capture my story.

And for me only, the Sony does this

As you say - Sony rings your bells but trumpeting on a thrread for users of EOS M series kit and running it down starts to drift into trolling.

I have photographs that I took in 1962 on aBox Brownie then K would say yes your kit is light years away from that era.

As the years went by I learned to develop and print at college and home, taught developing at evening classes and as the years went on I still enjoyed my hobby. I still do. As for my output, I will go bsck to what I have said, for me and many others, the picture comes first not the technology.

Many cannot afford the wide range of ever ‘improving’ tech or are happy with what they have.

Technically Canon may never reach the heights of ‘stunning’ you reach but so what?

I just unpacked 10 Kodak Colorplus 35mm film. £2.20 a roll.

Tomorrow morning, I will stick a roll in a Pentax MX with a 50mm f/1.4 m lens, my old Weston light meter and along with a cheese and pickle sandwich, tomorrow I will head of and wander through Clifton in Bristol.

What will be ‘stunning for me’ will be that I will not think about the battery in my35 year old camera (it does not work but the Weston does). AF, TTL, EVF, variable ISO (nope) Pixel Peeking etc etc nope.

I will be looking for ghe light, the picture and the moment. 1 roll of film and an eye for the moment.

Strange as it seems I do similar with my EOS M kit, EOS DSLR/SLR kit, my Pentax 645 kit, my Olympus mju etc.

So enjoy the tech, I will enjoy photography.
 
O so I have to be an owner or fanboy of this camera before I'm allowed to post my opinions on it.

OK..
No, you are free to discuss the EOS, but stop comparing it to / pimping the Sony, at every post, it makes you sound like a "fan boy"
Or at least an employee / share holder of Sony
 
Had a hour or so spare this afternoon so I have tested my M3 and my available lenses together ,as you might have gathered I love the recently acquired canon 55-250is STM it focuses fast and accurately with little or no searching ,locks on to target fast and is a ideal walk around summer combo especially if you have a macro In the bag to .

Next I tried jans 400 f5.6 which I thought would be ideal ,but far from it it was jittery and jumpy failing to aquire target most of the time and not holding target properly .quiet dissapointing in fact .

And finally I put the big sigma 150-600 sport on the tripod and then attached the M3 to it .and TBH I found it as fast and accurate as the 55-250 ,quiet a surprising result and one that needs to be followed up out in the field on a nice day .

Please note these results only refer to my M3 and not any others in the range and to my own lenses . I do however get the feeling that the mirrorless bodies tend to gel better with the more electronically advanced lenses with better i.s systems . Once I can get a day out with my mate and his M5 I will try it out again in the field .
 
When I tried the M5 with the 400mm 5.6 it worked perfectly, even with the 1.4x attached. Presumably the upgraded autofocus must make a difference.
yep thats the combo my mate uses ,will be looking to upgrade later this year probably ,just treading cautiously mike but enjoying it .the fine detail that can be pulled from the files is very encouraging though
 
When I tried my M5 on my 100-400mm L II, both with and without the x1.4 III mounted and handheld I found it uncomfortably unbalanced which resulted in the M5's small controls feeling even smaller and fiddly than they actually are!

Excellent images are achievable when the M5 is mounted on the Canon 500mm F/4L II but ONLY while the combo remains mounted on a tripod (gimbal head). Otherwise the handling is grossly out of balance and there is not enough grip on the body. Although designed to fit into the EOS range of EF lenses by using an adapter, I have found that the bigger the lens the worse it handles.
 
I would have thought that was fairly obvious robin, the reason my mate uses his m5 with a 400 f5.6 is I advised him to try it as he couldn't hold his 1D3 any longer due to a touch of Parkinson's ,yet his present rig is doing the business hand held ...... like wise the main reason I got rid of the 80d's that I had was that even with a battery pack attached the whole rig was front heavy with the sigma sport on it ,however a 1D series camera balances nicely even hand held ,its all a matter of ergonomics and C of G .
 
I would have thought that was fairly obvious robin, the reason my mate uses his m5 with a 400 f5.6 is I advised him to try it as he couldn't hold his 1D3 any longer due to a touch of Parkinson's ,yet his present rig is doing the business hand held ...... like wise the main reason I got rid of the 80d's that I had was that even with a battery pack attached the whole rig was front heavy with the sigma sport on it ,however a 1D series camera balances nicely even hand held ,its all a matter of ergonomics and C of G .

....Yes it certainly is fairly obvious but I thought that readers might be interested to hear specifically which combos work better than others. Although I think that the majority of M-series users in this thread do not mount EF lenses.
 
They could... but isn’t one of the selling points of mirrorless a smaller body?

It is but only if you're using matching glass otherwise in overall size it's really not much different from a typical SLR.

Having the option of both is a fine thing though.
 
It is but only if you're using matching glass otherwise in overall size it's really not much different from a typical SLR.

Having the option of both is a fine thing though.
Thats what i love about mirrorless. You have the option to go out with a camera that will fit in a larger pocket if you want it.
 
It is but only if you're using matching glass otherwise in overall size it's really not much different from a typical SLR.

Having the option of both is a fine thing though.

What first drew me to mirrorless was the reduction in bulk and weight but once I got to grips with it I came to love the new things that morrorless bring such as the EVF and the ability to see the DoF and the exposure and to be able to call up a greatly magnified view. Then there's the things that mirrorless doesn't bring... like not having to MA lenses.

So, although I like compact and light kit I can imagine someone having something the size of a DSLR but it being mirrorless and that user being very happy :D It's not for me though, give me compact and light every time :D
 
The advantage of mirrorless and the main selling point and attraction is the smaller body AND lenses.


Canon’s M-series problem are their lenses, you simply have to use the EOS-system, which is fine as the adaptor works like native, I mean they holds the patent and blueprint and code so it should work like the adaptor isn’t there. This does not however solve the lens problem, I think there are more bodies released in the M-series now than there actual lenses. In the a similar span of time Fuji have managed to put out mk2 of their 23/33/56 mm primes. You can clearly see where Canon’s intentions are with the M-series, it is that they are not serious about it for the people coming from DSLR. The whole range is designed for people who used to look into compact but now mirrorless. In that regard, all they really want are a couple of entry level zooms, they will never put a 400L on it, I don’t think they even know you can do that. The young YouTuber start ups wanting a flip up screen, Canon branding, smaller and good at focusing. It takes all the boxes. The whole “full frame” is probably meaningless to them until may be they own the camera and then into photography for a while.


The angle of the M-series as a back up camera for the bag is a VERY niche market, first you got to have a bag of Canon glass, and then in the position to even need a back up camera, not a back up, but like back up of a back up…perhaps 4th down the list. I actually considered one of these when it first came out because it is small but in the end I end up keeping a last gen 5D3 body as the 3rd camera over a M-series. The 5D3, being a few years old is still vastly superior. However that isn’t fair to the M-series but the point is, I would be looking at it from a perspective of a DSLR which is unfair as clearly the marketing and target audience is for someone who is getting into photography, not already into photography. Now my 3rd body is an A7III, I kinda wish it is made by Canon as that should have been the plan but at least somebody is doing it. (This is the bit DSLR Canon user wants but this isn’t what Canon is doing)


Fuji’s strategy on the other hand is the one that is targeting at photographers who has DSLR kit already, or already big into their cameras, hence the rangefinder-esq X-Pro, the retro styling, the DSLR like of the X-T. They know what photographers are after and they give it to them in spades. The M-series is not for that crowd.


Sony A6500 is an interesting one, there is 1 major downside to that, there is no flip up/side screen. I think Casey Neistat used to shoot on Canon 80D due to the lip out screen, then he went to the Sony A6500 for a while but the lack of flip out screen drove him nuts as he can’t see whether he is in focus and he can’t see his framing. The images on it was almost indistinguishable to his normal Sony Full frame set up. This is why iJustine vlogs with a Sony RX100V on the go, it has flip up screen. (I think her studio set up is a Sony A7S2 with an external monitor). A LOT of vloggers start out videoing with a Canon GX7 for this reason, once they get past using their phone. At this price point the most attractive feature for a lot of customers are video, and shooting yourself in the face :p, it is a massive thing at the moment that’s why it is baffling Canon took so long to implement 4K, and baffling how they didn’t implement Dual Pixel into 4k for the M50. Besides all the cropped factor when shooting 4k, it becomes a 2.4x crop. Keep doing things half arsed.


At this point I’ve lost track where this entire thing is going! Right….The M-series is where is because it is designed to be there. It will be a few years before it is something to go up against the A7/9 range, or something comes out to do that. When it does, it will play catch up because that’s the nature of technology, you start late, you play catch up. Canon can do it, I look forward their flagship full frame mirrorless when it arrives.
 
Still like the idea of swapping my 80D set up for the smaller M series but need something faster or equivalent to my current 10-18
 
Last edited:
The M-series is where is because it is designed to be there. It will be a few years before it is something to go up against the A7/9 range, or something comes out to do that. When it does, it will play catch up because that’s the nature of technology, you start late, you play catch up. Canon can do it, I look forward their flagship full frame mirrorless when it arrives.

....Does anyone here remember when digital camera bodies with autofocus first appeared? Canon didn't launch their versions until about a year after Nikon but when they did it was a whole lot better. Canon's then strange ergonomics, very different F-stop increments and their much better autofocus system was worth waiting for and I then tried a Canon D-SLR and switched from Nikon to Canon. Nikon have since caught up of course and they keep overtaking each other, all to the consumer's benefit.

So I have every faith in Canon eventually catching up with some very nice full-frame mirrorless bodies. But personally I don't know if I will want to go mirrorless as I don't want a smaller body and current EVFs always feel too remote.
 
The advantage of mirrorless and the main selling point and attraction is the smaller body AND lenses.


Canon’s M-series problem are their lenses, you simply have to use the EOS-system, which is fine as the adaptor works like native, I mean they holds the patent and blueprint and code so it should work like the adaptor isn’t there. This does not however solve the lens problem, I think there are more bodies released in the M-series now than there actual lenses. In the a similar span of time Fuji have managed to put out mk2 of their 23/33/56 mm primes. You can clearly see where Canon’s intentions are with the M-series, it is that they are not serious about it for the people coming from DSLR. The whole range is designed for people who used to look into compact but now mirrorless. In that regard, all they really want are a couple of entry level zooms, they will never put a 400L on it, I don’t think they even know you can do that. The young YouTuber start ups wanting a flip up screen, Canon branding, smaller and good at focusing. It takes all the boxes. The whole “full frame” is probably meaningless to them until may be they own the camera and then into photography for a while.


The angle of the M-series as a back up camera for the bag is a VERY niche market, first you got to have a bag of Canon glass, and then in the position to even need a back up camera, not a back up, but like back up of a back up…perhaps 4th down the list. I actually considered one of these when it first came out because it is small but in the end I end up keeping a last gen 5D3 body as the 3rd camera over a M-series. The 5D3, being a few years old is still vastly superior. However that isn’t fair to the M-series but the point is, I would be looking at it from a perspective of a DSLR which is unfair as clearly the marketing and target audience is for someone who is getting into photography, not already into photography. Now my 3rd body is an A7III, I kinda wish it is made by Canon as that should have been the plan but at least somebody is doing it. (This is the bit DSLR Canon user wants but this isn’t what Canon is doing)


Fuji’s strategy on the other hand is the one that is targeting at photographers who has DSLR kit already, or already big into their cameras, hence the rangefinder-esq X-Pro, the retro styling, the DSLR like of the X-T. They know what photographers are after and they give it to them in spades. The M-series is not for that crowd.


Sony A6500 is an interesting one, there is 1 major downside to that, there is no flip up/side screen. I think Casey Neistat used to shoot on Canon 80D due to the lip out screen, then he went to the Sony A6500 for a while but the lack of flip out screen drove him nuts as he can’t see whether he is in focus and he can’t see his framing. The images on it was almost indistinguishable to his normal Sony Full frame set up. This is why iJustine vlogs with a Sony RX100V on the go, it has flip up screen. (I think her studio set up is a Sony A7S2 with an external monitor). A LOT of vloggers start out videoing with a Canon GX7 for this reason, once they get past using their phone. At this price point the most attractive feature for a lot of customers are video, and shooting yourself in the face :p, it is a massive thing at the moment that’s why it is baffling Canon took so long to implement 4K, and baffling how they didn’t implement Dual Pixel into 4k for the M50. Besides all the cropped factor when shooting 4k, it becomes a 2.4x crop. Keep doing things half arsed.


At this point I’ve lost track where this entire thing is going! Right….The M-series is where is because it is designed to be there. It will be a few years before it is something to go up against the A7/9 range, or something comes out to do that. When it does, it will play catch up because that’s the nature of technology, you start late, you play catch up. Canon can do it, I look forward their flagship full frame mirrorless when it arrives.

Interesting take and tnought on the matter.

The issue is potentially a lot simpler.

Canon came late into ghis sector of the market, Nikon were never really going to develop which left the Fuji, Sony and MFT brands out on their own.

Late to the flexible market for compact systems or early to a new sector of flexible blog/Vlog tools?

Canon’s approach has been jittery to say the least but their adapter makes some sense as an interim measure. Long term we will see.

The long term is not people like me, embedded in Canon but happy to lighten their physical kit load, but the Social Media world of on-line visual presence.

My last 2 trips to the USA showed a huge increase in people ‘filming’ everything and their results moving onto various platforms. I met a couple who were using mirrorless kit to make a 15 minute comedy film to pitch an idea for a TV show. Neither of them worked in media.

Not my interest but a project I have been working on has a gap that I need to add video into. It may well be that dynamic that will move me off Canon, if their M lens offering stutters along as it has thus far. A new 32mm f/1.4 prime may herald a new era - I hope so.

For now the M series is usable and it now needs to develop. The M50 plastic with a bit of everything may just be what the market needs to tap into a wider market? I shall look at it but maybe a Canon EOS C100......
 
everybody's needs are different ,my prime target area is wildlife ,you need fast accurate focussing most of the time ,I have had two of the mk1 EOS-M bodies and got rid of both due to there shortfalls .now having recently bought a sigma 150mm is macro I wanted a light weight body to go on it that would slip in the bag easily without adding a weight problem .the M3 suites my needs adequately in that respect ,I have just bought a 55-250 STM as it belonged to a recently departed dear friend ,for sentimental reasons and due to the good reports it gets this lens coupled on the M3 is a game changer as it speeds up a/f considerably to . the other factor I have to take into account is old age I'm now on the wrong side of 72 and its really becoming a chore lugging around a tripod ,1D body, and a heavy sigma sport lens about .

my friend is doing extremely well with his m5 and a 400mm f5.6 and this could indeed be a future path for me to follow ,time will tell once I have managed to have a proper play with his gear maybe even substitute the canon lens for a lighter sigma 100-400 is .

the one thing I will add here is having only so far used my m3 and 55-250 briefly I have to admit the one thing its added for me anyway is the fun factor I really enjoyed myself the other day and that is a massive deciding factor coupled with the fact that theres no extra head banging menus to get my brain around everything is virtually the same as a full size body .

canon will bring out bodies and lenses once they have a buyers market for them not before .
 
everybody's needs are different ,my prime target area is wildlife ,you need fast accurate focussing most of the time ,I have had two of the mk1 EOS-M bodies and got rid of both due to there shortfalls .now having recently bought a sigma 150mm is macro I wanted a light weight body to go on it that would slip in the bag easily without adding a weight problem .the M3 suites my needs adequately in that respect ,I have just bought a 55-250 STM as it belonged to a recently departed dear friend ,for sentimental reasons and due to the good reports it gets this lens coupled on the M3 is a game changer as it speeds up a/f considerably to . the other factor I have to take into account is old age I'm now on the wrong side of 72 and its really becoming a chore lugging around a tripod ,1D body, and a heavy sigma sport lens about .

my friend is doing extremely well with his m5 and a 400mm f5.6 and this could indeed be a future path for me to follow ,time will tell once I have managed to have a proper play with his gear maybe even substitute the canon lens for a lighter sigma 100-400 is .

the one thing I will add here is having only so far used my m3 and 55-250 briefly I have to admit the one thing its added for me anyway is the fun factor I really enjoyed myself the other day and that is a massive deciding factor coupled with the fact that theres no extra head banging menus to get my brain around everything is virtually the same as a full size body .

canon will bring out bodies and lenses once they have a buyers market for them not before .

....Agreed, every single one of us has different needs. You (Jeff) and I both shoot wildlife and yet we have different camera gear preferences.

Your comment about reaching the wrong side of 72 worries me as I will be 71 in a week or two. Does this mean that I suddenly won't want my beloved Canon 500mm F/4 II? < I very much doubt it!

The fun factor with your new M3? - Be aware that you're still in the honeymoon period. I felt the same about my M5 for the first six months but no longer. I still like it but not as much - It's not my go-to body.

See you at the next Gear Sluts Anonymous meet :D
 
Back
Top