# EOS M replaced my 5D kit



## FunPhotons (Aug 5, 2013)

I got the M deal and have been using it for a few weeks, and just took it up for a trip to a family reunion up in a picturesque area. I have the three lenses for it including the new UWA which I had just received from Canada. Unusually I didn't bring my big DSLR which I pack into a Pelican case with all the lenses, filters, flashes, etc. Did I miss the DLSR? Not a bit. 

No, it's not as good as, but it's _good enough_ and comes in a tiny package is easy to travel with, plus it works with with existing accessories such as the GPS and flash units. I just brought the camera, three lenses and a single older 580ex flash and it covered everything I wanted. A chair worked for a tripod for the big family shot (and the single flash on top worked perfectly), and otherwise I never took the UWA lens off for everything I wanted. Normally I have to bring the DLSR _and_ a compact camera or two whereas this covered all bases about as well. 

Anyhow it seems to get me 90% of the way there, and is the last 10% really worth all that weight? Hmm ...


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 6, 2013)

And here I am at the beach, squinting at a screen thru bifocal sunglasses, taking photos but not knowing til I am back in my room how many I "got" and how many I'll delete. Don't get me wrong, I really like this little guy but the most I can say is that it an ALTERNATIVE to my 5Diii, not a REPLACEMENT.

I have had success with family shot around the house. This has IQ way better than my D10 P&S, but I love the DSLR. I am glad to have both


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 6, 2013)

Its true that a tiny bit of improvement comes at a high cost. Its also true that the way you use your camera may mean that a "M" is all you need. Many feel a camera phone is good enough. I have no argument to offer to them.

I find my 5D MK III at ISO 12800 and 25600 in dark theaters, and I doubt the "M" would suffice. Those who shoot sports or other rapidly moving objects might feel the same.

Landscapes are another area where a lot of detail and FF help out.

The "M" is small, and easy to carry around, and that's a plus. However, Canon utilities does not support tethered remote shooting with it for some reason, and that alone is enough to decrease its usefulness to me. There are some other applications that allow it to be remotely triggered, but I'm not going to spend the $$$ to get them.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 6, 2013)

M is great for still shooting. I used it as my P&S camera and yet it out perform any other Canon P&S cameras. It just not small enough for my pocket. IQ is no where near 5D. 

With 22x15mm sensor size, the M can't even beat 1" sensor from Sony - the pocketable RX100 II :-[ 

Side by side, I'm amazed how rx100 mrk II produces great IQ for indoor shots. I ended up selling my M on CL for $365 - a profit of $65 in my pocket. I should receive my rx100 II this coming thur. I'll post some pics.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 6, 2013)

JPAZ said:


> it is an ALTERNATIVE to my 5Diii, not a REPLACEMENT.



+1 for my 6D. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with the M! But, it will never replace my 6D as my primary camera. Its great as a light, portable _alternative_.

I'm sure for others who have different needs and expectations, the EOS-M could be a replacement for a DSLR.


----------



## Tyroop (Aug 6, 2013)

Great post. This is exactly how I feel since buying the EOS M and you have summed it up very well. I didn't come from full frame, but my APS C kit was bulky and heavy, and consequently I was becoming increasingly reluctant to take it anywhere for general purposes. No, the EOS M isn't a replacement, but as you say, it's good enough 90% of the time.

I am now on the fence whether to keep my DSLR system for the other 10% or just sell it. I really want the EF-M 11-22mm but it hasn't appeared in my region yet.


----------



## michi (Aug 6, 2013)

I don't know if I can say it replaced my others, but I have been using it more than any other camera since I got it. I'm highly impressed.


----------



## FunPhotons (Aug 6, 2013)

It seems like the DSLR is like a stick of dynamite. It will get a lot done if it is set up right, but that's difficult to do and is just as likely to blow up. The EOS-M works better for for most shots. It will get them easily and simply, and will be there at your side for them all the time, but it won't move as much earth as the dynamite. 

If I was shooting professionally I wouldn't give the EOS-M a glance, but you know I wonder if many or most of us non pro shooters are getting too much camera. Having said that I like having the full kit and still plan to use it, but maybe it will be more like the Mercedes that only gets driven on the weekend.


----------



## crasher8 (Aug 6, 2013)

I ordered mine today. Mostly for a week in WDW to use at the Animal Kingdom with my Tamron 70-200 and 1.4 TC for 448mm. I'll walkaround with it and the 24-70 in the Magic Kingdom and the Sigma 35 1.4 at night.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2013)

FunPhotons said:


> It seems like the DSLR is like a stick of dynamite. It will get a lot done if it is set up right, but that's difficult to do and is just as likely to blow up.



I don't find mine difficult to set up. Have you tried reading your manual?


----------



## Etienne (Aug 6, 2013)

I like my EOS-M, but DSLR replacement? Big stretch that is.
The IQ is good, for a compact camera, but not even close to my 5D3.
I think the EOS-M, or one of it's relatives, will easily replace a DSLR,... for people who never really needed a DSLR


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 6, 2013)

IQ is definitely a big leap in low light vs the point and shoot. I still love my 6D though for the extra low light sensitivity.

Just get a hoodman Loupe if you want to shoot in bright sun .


----------



## cnardo (Aug 6, 2013)

After using the M this weekend ....outside.... Yeah it was small and light...carried on my belt with a LowPro dashboard 20 (like Neuro recommended).... But hard to see that LCD!!! I agree with jPaz...... Keep the M, but use it as a backup. Don't forget, the only fast M lens is the 22mm lens... All of the other lens are>=F/3.5 !


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 6, 2013)

Yeah, ive had my M for about two weeks now. I think this guy is smoking the good stuff... 

Its a pretty noisy sensor akin to the the 7d, but ill be damned if its not a nice piece of kit. Seems fragile despite the weight. I frolicking LOVE the 22 f2, especially as there is no full sized lens equivalent (wtf?).

Also, the battery life just f**@$#ng sucks. REALLY, really terrible. What was the last piece of electronics i bought with a 875mh battery...yuck, yuck yuck.

The firmware update turned this into a real winner overall, but ill be damned if my jpegs are not coming out pretty squishy with some halo-like effects. hmm.

but a 5 d replacement? yeah, only for leisure time, sure.


----------



## drjlo (Aug 6, 2013)

Etienne said:


> The IQ is good, for a compact camera, but not even close to my 5D3.



The IQ difference is much more noticeable to "downgrade." Upgrading from Canon aps-c 18 mp sensor to 5D III gave me the sense of "pretty good" IQ upgrade. But after getting used to 5D III RAW files for a long time, the same 18 mp sensor RAW files from EOS-M feels like a much bigger downgrade than initially thought, especially if one is shooting in low-light man-to-man ISO-wise. 

With EOS-M, one can still get great results by shooting in good light, or arrange to have more speedlites, strobes, reflectors, etc in low light IME, with a good noise reduction software like Noiseware becoming helpful to narrow the gap.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 6, 2013)

FunPhotons said:


> It seems like the DSLR is like a stick of dynamite. It will get a lot done if it is set up right, but that's difficult to do and is just as likely to blow up. The EOS-M works better for for most shots. It will get them easily and simply, and will be there at your side for them all the time, but it won't move as much earth as the dynamite.
> 
> If I was shooting professionally I wouldn't give the EOS-M a glance, but you know I wonder if many or most of us non pro shooters are getting too much camera. Having said that I like having the full kit and still plan to use it, but maybe it will be more like the Mercedes that only gets driven on the weekend.



Maybe I'm just weird, but I find my full-blown DSLRs miles easier to use the the M (or any point and shoot or no-view-finder camera for that matter; I have no idea what to do with a cell-phone camera when a stranger hands me one asking me to take a photo of them because - pointing at my DSLR - I have "professional" equipment and thus "know what you're doing"). I'm quite impressed by the photos the M can take with the 22mm prime (the zoom not so much), and I like that, if I have one hand occupied with a kitten I can take close-up shots with the M in my other hand, some of which even seem to be in focus. I can imagine taking it with me when I have a DSLR or M43 with me and can't be bothered to switch to a 35mm lens.

But that's about it. It's much easier and much faster to selectively focus on small things with a dslr, it's much easier to hold a dslr steady (why does only one M lens have IS?), it's miles quicker to move from one shot to the next, DSLR batteries last more than twice as long, and, let's face it, clever though it is to be able to attach any EOS lens to an M if you buy an adapter, most of them look silly on an M and are awkward to use. Easy and simple? Not for me, at any rate.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 6, 2013)

drjlo said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > The IQ is good, for a compact camera, but not even close to my 5D3.
> ...



I am a fan of the 'M', but in no way could I see it replacing my 5DIII. I see the M as a camera on my belt when I might not otherwise have a camera. I am rarely happy with a phone camera shot, even for personal use, so the M is a big step up there.

I see a huge difference in IQ between the EOS M and the 5DIII. Mirrorless will probably replace DSLRs eventually, but I don't see that day on the horizon just yet. I think APS-C is best for mirrorless until all the tech is fully developed.

Once the AF, viewfinder, and ergonomics are mature, then a Full-frame mirrorless with mirrorless-optimized lenses will be the way to go. There's no point of a FF mirrorless on the end of today's 70-200 2.8, or larger lens. Or even the 16-35 2.8. All of that is still over the horizon.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 6, 2013)

drjlo said:


> With EOS-M, one can still get great results by shooting in good light, or arrange to have more speedlites, strobes, reflectors, etc in low light IME, with a good noise reduction software like Noiseware becoming helpful to narrow the gap.



and why are we buying mirrorless again?


----------



## BL (Aug 6, 2013)

Replace my 5D? yes and no

just sold my 16-35 II, to be replaced by the EFM 11-22 as the M will be my primary, ultralight backpacking, landscape kit.

but when razor thin bokeh is in order, nothing but f1.2 will do. i have a feeling the 85 II will more or less find a permanent home on my DSLR now.


----------



## FunPhotons (Aug 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> FunPhotons said:
> 
> 
> > It seems like the DSLR is like a stick of dynamite. It will get a lot done if it is set up right, but that's difficult to do and is just as likely to blow up.
> ...



How droll  

What I mean by this comment is that with the DSLR, lenses, filters, tripod, color correction, flashes, modifiers, etc I'll usually go to great lengths to get mediocre pictures. And oftentimes using that specialized stuff leads to mistakes, like the time I had the reverse GND on for taking sunset pictures, then forgot it when a perfect picture of the family presented itself. Interesting to see their light legs and dark upper bodies - bang! If I just kept it simple and not tried to get a perfect shot of a sunset (which has been done a billion times before) then I could have some nice landscape shots and family shots (sure before you say it I can try and massage the shot in PS, but in that case in those circumstances I think the picture is probably lost). 

Or messing with flashes, instead of just keeping it simple and using ambient, with maybe a little fill light I'll fiddle with three flashes, modifiers and ... often get worse lighting with odd shadows I'm struggling to control - bang!

Or I'll go out and about with one of my extreme lenses, like a UWA or a telephoto, and have a lens completely wrong for something else I'd like to take a shot of (like a family shot and all I've got is a UWA) - bang! Or I'll go out with just the 50 (which is still heavier than the EOS M and two lenses) and miss shots at the other extremes - bang!

Sure, before you all tell me how you can carry 60 lbs of equipment on your back and always get just the right setup, in time, for the circumstances you want to get the shot because you anticipated it 10 minutes before, that's great and good for you. Hey maybe I'll get there too someday, I'd like to think so and it gives me a goal, as I'm certainly not selling my gear.


----------



## infared (Aug 6, 2013)

Perhaps an iPhone would serve your needs even better?


----------



## BozillaNZ (Aug 6, 2013)

I found my GX1 to be a lot better replacement to DSLR than the M

14mm f2.5 for wide shots (28mm), adding Sony VCL-ECU1 for ultra wide (20mm)

20mm f1.7 for wide-ish normal with big aperture (40mm)

45mm f1.8 to tight portait shots (90mm)

The line up is a lot better than the dinky kit of M, those lenses are also smaller, light, have larger aperture.

Oh, forgot to mention the GX1 can actually focus, fast that is!

Speak of ultra-wide, nothing in the same weight/size range beats the Lumix 7-14.


----------



## tron (Aug 6, 2013)

ecka said:


> FunPhotons said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


There were 2 circumstances where I would get better results with less equipment due to the ability to carry it a few hundred meters. This would make a difference. But in many other cases it was the opposite. In the specific case you mention didn't you look thru the viewfinder to see that half of the picture was darker? OK maybe it was a soft grad but still...


----------



## tron (Aug 6, 2013)

For me the best balance is a DSLR with 2 to 4 lenses tops (even better: 3). If I have more it gets difficult to manage and carry.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 6, 2013)

BL said:


> Replace my 5D? yes and no
> 
> just sold my 16-35 II, to be replaced by the EFM 11-22 as the M will be my primary, ultralight backpacking, landscape kit
> 
> but when razor thin bokeh is in order, nothing but f1.2 will do. i have a feeling the 85 II will more or less find a permanent home on my DSLR now.



+1....I love to shoot landscape with mirrorless. I wish Canon, Nikon, Sony or Fuji will release FF mirrorless + exchangeable lenses. 

The only reason I'm still shooting with DSLR is: be able to track moving subject.


----------



## mlbaker74 (Aug 6, 2013)

I don't know that I would say the M replaced my 5D III, but it definitely replaced my old S95. With two young kids, I just throw it in the diaper bag/backpack when we go out; much better IQ than the S95 and a lot lighter/bulkier than the 5D with the 40mm pancake. 

I've also found a bit of use for the M at some MLS games recently. Last year, I had no problem getting in my gear as long as my bag was small enough. This year, security has gotten picky about what they allow in: no "professional" cameras and all lenses have to be less than 4in when fully extended. While it is not quite the same as my 5D III with a 70-200, I was able to get some real nice shots with the M and my 85 1.8 (with the adapter EOS M adapter ring). Autofocus speed was fine as long as you could follow the run of play. In all, very happy with my M and provides a nice alternative for more casual photography.


----------



## LukieLauXD (Aug 6, 2013)

My M didn't replace my 5D2 either. I really like my M because it's smaller, still have to put it in a bag, so it's slightly less convenient than my point and shoot, but I like the M since it's higher quality and better than my point and shoot in general, it's made me more confident to bring my camera with me and take pictures in situations like when using a point-and-shoot would be wasting the scene and it was too inconvenient to bring my 5D2.

I love my M  and I hope that Canon will continue developing it ^-^

And the point and shoot it replaced was a Nikon S9300. My family always has a tendency to buy point and shoots in Nikon and DSLRs (and M) in Canon and now we have a perfect Canon set whenever we go on trips.


----------



## fman (Aug 7, 2013)

BozillaNZ said:


> I found my GX1 to be a lot better replacement to DSLR than the M
> 
> 14mm f2.5 for wide shots (28mm), adding Sony VCL-ECU1 for ultra wide (20mm)
> 
> ...



+1

14 2.5 -> 12 f/2 (24mm)
Considering Pana GX7 nowadays (but may reconsider the E-M5 successor).

Small, light and superb IQ (even wide open). AF is fast except for 20 1.7 but for that there is the 25 1.4 as an even better alternative.

EOS-M is lacking lens, focusing speed and recent mFT bodies have e.g. better shutter (1/8000).


----------

