Canon M5?

Went to the WPPI show in Vegas today and talked with one of my old friends and past co-worker who is now a Canon tech rep. He was showing me "new" Canon M5 mirroless camera to replace my 5D III that I bought when I retired 18 months ago....It was pretty cool and certainly nice and small and light but... I know nothing more about it and I certainly could not take his demo out for a walk....so anyone used it? Anyone have any opinions?

Went to the WPPI show in Vegas today and talked with one of my old friends and past co-worker who is now a Canon tech rep. He was showing me "new" Canon M5 mirroless camera to replace my 5D III that I bought when I retired 18 months ago....It was pretty cool and certainly nice and small and light but... I know nothing more about it and I certainly could not take his demo out for a walk....so anyone used it? Anyone have any opinions?

It's a mirrorless equivalent of the 80d.

Surprised it was suggested as a replacement for the 5diii.... very different animal.

The 5diii is a top performing full frame camera. It is a professional instrument with top performance, and top low light image quality, and the other benefits of full frame.

The M5 is a nice camera, it's Canon's first true enthusiast mirrorless camera. Basically take their 80d, shrink it down a little, and substitute EVF for OVF.

But it can't come close to the performance of the 5diii or full frame benefits.

-If you're looking to downsize and stay within Canon... it's a very nice choice.

-If you're looking to downsize but want to stick with full frame, try the Sony a7ii or a7rii (they will even use the Canon lenses with metabones adapter).

-if you're looking to downsize but keep the feel of traditional full frame dSLR, the Nikon d750 is very similar in a lot of ways to the 5diii, but cheaper and smaller. But would require changing your lenses.

Thanks for the info. I looked at the Sony gear before I bought the 5D III. It just did not feel right in my hands so I passed on it and the whole metabones adapter thing did not wow me. When I started downsizing and getting ready to retire I sold my 1D Mark IVs, my long glass, my fisheye and kept the 16-35, 24-105 and 70-200. Now 18 months into retirement I am just wondering if there is a real lighter weight option for me that keeps in in the Canon family and feels right in my hands. The M5 felt fairly good but it was only 10 minutes...

Thanks for the info. I looked at the Sony gear before I bought the 5D III. It just did not feel right in my hands so I passed on it and the whole metabones adapter thing did not wow me. When I started downsizing and getting ready to retire I sold my 1D Mark IVs, my long glass, my fisheye and kept the 16-35, 24-105 and 70-200. Now 18 months into retirement I am just wondering if there is a real lighter weight option for me that keeps in in the Canon family and feels right in my hands. The M5 felt fairly good but it was only 10 minutes...

You'll need an adapter to use those lenses on the M5.. not really any different than using the metabones.

If you're most comfortable with the Canon system, I definitely see the M5 as a nice way to downsize a little.

But as long as you're stick with those lenses, you won't be downsizing very much.

Also consider whether you really want to downsize your sensor.

I suspect Canon will launch a full frame mirrorless in the next 6-12 months. There are rumors that they will release a 6dii and a mirrorless equivalent of it (like the 80d/M5). For now, Sony is the only mirrorless full frame, but that will change.

I do tend to think people put too much emphasis on the camera body when downsizing--- though it requires more of a change in shooting style, you could really lighten your load with a range of primes.

I have my heavy set up -- Nikon d750 + 18-35, 24-70, 85/1.8, 70-200, sb700

My mid weight bag -- d750 + 14/2.8 +45/1.8 and maybe 300/4 if I need telephoto

And my lightweight bag-- Sony a6300+10-18, 24/1.8, 50/1.8

And some other combos.

You'll need an adapter to use those lenses on the M5.. not really any different than using the metabones.

If you're most comfortable with the Canon system, I definitely see the M5 as a nice way to downsize a little.

But as long as you're stick with those lenses, you won't be downsizing very much.

Also consider whether you really want to downsize your sensor.

I suspect Canon will launch a full frame mirrorless in the next 6-12 months. There are rumors that they will release a 6dii and a mirrorless equivalent of it (like the 80d/M5). For now, Sony is the only mirrorless full frame, but that will change.

 

I do tend to think people put too much emphasis on the camera body when downsizing--- though it requires more of a change in shooting style, you could really lighten your load with a range of primes.

 

I have my heavy set up -- Nikon d750 + 18-35, 24-70, 85/1.8, 70-200, sb700

My mid weight bag -- d750 + 14/2.8 +45/1.8 and maybe 300/4 if I need telephoto

And my lightweight bag-- Sony a6300+10-18, 24/1.8, 50/1.8

 

And some other combos.

I agree about the adapter and I guess that is my biggest concern. I am not crazy about giving up 2.8 and 4 glass. If I had not been to the show yesterday and seen it I would not even be thinking about it. I have also debated changing the 70-200 2,8 IS II for the F4 version. Just a lot of thinking for now. We have a big trip coming up and there is no way I would make a change in my gear this close to a trip. Maybe after, but not this week.

I agree about the adapter and I guess that is my biggest concern. I am not crazy about giving up 2.8 and 4 glass. If I had not been to the show yesterday and seen it I would not even be thinking about it. I have also debated changing the 70-200 2,8 IS II for the F4 version. Just a lot of thinking for now. We have a big trip coming up and there is no way I would make a change in my gear this close to a trip. Maybe after, but not this week.

That's why I like primes. Faster than 2.8 and F4 glass, while also being lighter. Thanks to the resolution of today's cameras, there is enough cropping room that you can get a bit more flexibility. For example, my 14/2.8 can effectively become a 14-24 or so. My 45/1.8 easily covers 45mm-70. My 85/1.8 can cover 85 to 135 or so.

Anyway, when you stick a big 2.8 zoom on a "compact" mirrorless camera, you are barely saving any weight. Instead of 2,000 grams body+lens, you are down to 1,700 grams body+lens.

You may want to consider renting some of your options and giving them a real 2 day trial.

I would not stick that big zoom on a mirrorless body. I was made to be used on a DSLR and that is where it belongs. Cropping is fine when it is necessary but I always strive to be pretty close to what I want in the camera. There are also a lot is things like controlling the DOF, the compression, etc come into play for me. Renting is indeed an option but I am thinking that I will ask the nice folks at CPS about an evaluation loaner once I get back from the cruise. It is tempting to ask for one to take with me but the standard loan period is 10 day, the trip is 21....Taking the grip off the 5D III will be a nice weight savings for now.

I would not stick that big zoom on a mirrorless body. I was made to be used on a DSLR and that is where it belongs. Cropping is fine when it is necessary but I always strive to be pretty close to what I want in the camera. There are also a lot is things like controlling the DOF, the compression, etc come into play for me. Renting is indeed an option but I am thinking that I will ask the nice folks at CPS about an evaluation loaner once I get back from the cruise. It is tempting to ask for one to take with me but the standard loan period is 10 day, the trip is 21....Taking the grip off the 5D III will be a nice weight savings for now.

They make those big zooms particularly for mirrorless --- Sony just launched their own 70-200/2.8 for mirrorless full frame. Nothing inherent dSLR vs mirrorless about it. Fact is, if you want all that control over depth of field and everything else, then you need the big lenses and the big sensor.

If you switched to the M5 and the included kit lenses.... you might be perfectly happy. But your image quality, depth of field control, etc, will be the same as using a Canon Rebel with kit lens. That's a huge huge huge step down, when you're used to professional gear.

After 47 years of using professional gear I am pretty use to it and there in lies the biggest problem for me. Thanks for reminding me of some of the things that get lost in my brain when I see all of those shiny new toys at the big shows....Now talk me out of spending that money on a 200 F2 or an 85 1.2......

After 47 years of using professional gear I am pretty use to it and there in lies the biggest problem for me. Thanks for reminding me of some of the things that get lost in my brain when I see all of those shiny new toys at the big shows....Now talk me out of spending that money on a 200 F2 or an 85 1.2......

With advancements in technology, and changes in your needs, you may not need the same big expensive gear you used to.

It really depends on the tradeoffs you want to make.

Today's best APS-C sensors can give you the same basic image quality as full frame cameras from 5 years ago. At least in terms of dynamic range, resolution, ISO performance.

For example, my A6300 can produce good looking shots at ISO3200-6400, and I can even get half-decent web images at ISO 51,200.

Go back 10 years, and there wasn't much in terms of stabilized lenses -- Today's stabilized lenses and stabilized cameras, further allow for more low light leeway without resorting to high ISO or big wide aperture lenses.

But using smaller aperture lenses... or smaller sensors.. won't give you the depth of field control you may be used to.

On the other hand, take a small mirrorless APS-C camera, and put on a 1.8 prime, you will still get the same DOF control basically as your 5diii and 2.8 lens... so maybe that's good enough.

I find I've become an IQ snob. Which is why I resort to my Nikon D750 and prime lenses for my most serious work, and only really use m A6300 when I need lightweight and casual. But I could probably do all my work with the A6300, and very few people would notice the difference (but I'd notice).

I suggest you read these articles by Tom Bricker -- He is a very accomplished Disney blogger and photographer. He is a longtime Nikon shooter. He decided to switch to mirrorless, mostly to reduce size. He then found himself switching back.

It's a good exploration of some of the pros and cons of switching to mirrorless. In his case, he switched to full frame mirrorless, the Sony A7rii.

Anyway... if I were in your shoes, a long time Canon photographer, I'd wait for Canon to launch a full frame mirrorless camera. Then I'd very seriously consider switching. I'd keep most of my Canon glass to use with adapters for "serious" work.. but also get a couple smaller, light-weight alternatives.

http://www.disneytouristblog.com/going-mirrorless-tom-bricker-1/

http://www.disneytouristblog.com/jumping-ship-mirrorless-volume-ii/

My dedication to Canon started in 1990, after 25 years of using nothing but Nikon. When technology started coming into the camera world Nikon fell behind and when I needed new gear I made the switch. It took me a full year to fully adjust the the new world of Canon but they have been so supportive over the years I have stuck with them. In those years the technology seesawed back and forth but the cost to the glass and the Canon support kept me there. I saw the M5 at the show and it caught my eye but before I made any kind of commitment I needed to explore it so I really appreciate your input and ideas. The first digital camera I used was the one produced by Kodak/AP/Nikon/Canon. It created a 1mb TIFF file that was just terrible quality but it met the needs of a newspaper at that time. It was more about speed. That beast was hard to hold, cranky to use and slow slow slow...and it cost $18K. We have come a long long way since the late 90s.

I recently sold my Canon M3 and replaced it with the M5. I generally travel with only my smartphone and a mirrorless camera (with 22mm prime and 18-55mm zoom). However, I travel with both Canon 5DMIII and a mirrorless camera when making trips to polar regions or some other exotic location. During these trips I prefer to have two cameras that can share telephoto lenses. Also, having two cameras provides a backup solution in case of equipment malfunction. Frankly, I've spent enough on Canon glass that lens replacement is not in the cards for now. Using the Canon lens adapter with the M5 is a bit cumbersome with long telephoto lenses but it works.

So far, I've only used the M5 locally. One distinct advantage of the M5 over the M3 is the quicker focusing capability and increased frames per second capture rate. Also, having the EVF as part of the camera body is convenient. I rarely take videos with my cameras, so can't comment on this function.

I agree about the need for back ups. I am use to having at least three bodies with me at all times. Over the years people used to laugh at me when I would show up at a major event with extra everything, until they had to come borrow stuff from me... This stuff is fragile, it breaks so you need some back up, especially if you are doing it for money. All of that said, now that I am doing it just for me my iPhone7 is my back up. $2K is a bit steep for a back up body when it earns no money and I really don't like mixing my gear. I want all the bodies to be the same so my fingers know where to go without me thinking about it, that allows me to concentrate on composition, light and angles more. Time to go charge some batteries, we leave in 4 days....

Went to the WPPI show in Vegas today and talked with one of my old friends and past co-worker who is now a Canon tech rep. He was showing me "new" Canon M5 mirroless camera to replace my 5D III that I bought when I retired 18 months ago....It was pretty cool and certainly nice and small and light but... I know nothing more about it and I certainly could not take his demo out for a walk....so anyone used it? Anyone have any opinions?

You're comparing apples and oranges there. A nice little camera. But not a 5d by any stretch. I guess like all things it comes down to what you want from a camera and in particular what you want to do with the shots. I love mine for walk around, but for serious work give me a full size sensor every time.

Exactly my feelings GUT2407. That is why I asked the question here. When you are standing around with an old friend who is now a Canon tech rep and he is showing this really small, cool new camera that is so light and fun you can get carried away......I really like my 5D III and the lenses I still have so I am sticking with them for now.