# Review: Canon EOS M5 by DPReview



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 28, 2016)

```
DPReview has completed their review of the Canon EOS M5.</p>
<p><strong>From DPReview:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>The EOS M5 has plenty going for it. Shooting smooth, properly focused video is incredibly easy, and the new 24MP sensor has made great strides in overall image quality. Dual Pixel autofocus makes for faster, more precise focusing and really makes the M5 shine with adapted lenses. Unfortunately, it sits in a crowded market and its excellent usability can’t quite make up for the fact that you can arguably get more camera for less money elsewhere. <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m5-review">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Most of the reviews we’ve read about the Canon EOS M5 have been relatively positive, especially when compared to the first iterations of the EOS M system. Canon may have “caught up” in most cased as far as a mirrorless body goes, but they are still lacking lenses for more serious shooters, autofocus is still middle of the road, and there’s still a feeling Canon isn’t fully invested in mirrorless systems in their current form.</p>
<p>It looks like the EOS M5 is a good buy if you want to stay with the familiarity of the Canon system.</p>
<ul>
<li>Canon  EOS M5 Body: <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281373-REG/canon_1279c001aa_eos_m5_mirrorless_digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2cXfxRm">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ICAM5.html?KBID=64393">Adorama</a> | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-eos-m5-mirrorless-digital-camera-body-only.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></li>
<li>Canon EOS M5 w/15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM: <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281375-REG/canon_1279c011aa_eos_m5_mirrorless_digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2cXfxRm">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ICAM5K.html?KBID=64393">Adorama</a> | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-eos-m5-mirrorless-digital-camera-with-ef-m-15-45mm-lens-kit.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></li>
<li>Canon EOS M5 w/18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM: <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281376-REG/canon_1279c021aa_eos_m5_mirrorless_digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2cXfxRm">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ICAM5K1.html?KBID=64393">Adorama</a> | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-eos-m5-mirrorless-digital-camera-with-ef-m-18-150mm-lens-kit.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 28, 2016)

"... can’t quite make up for the fact that you can arguably get more camera for less money elsewhere. "

Totally ridiculous. There is NO other APS-C mirrorless system (bodies plus lenses) on the entire market offering better price-performance ratio. Not that the Canon EOS M5 is "perfect" in any way. Or "fully competitive" in all aspects (sensor, DR, AF system, ...) with all other manufacturer's offerings. Lots of angles for criticism. But not for price-performance. After all, Sony A6500 is not any cheaper and Oly want to charge 2 grand for a quarter-sensor mFT camera ("OMD OMG II"). 

The entire review just reeks of the well-known Anti-Canon bias of dpreview. Just look at their choice of "2016 products of the year" ... 

And this comes from me, definitely not a card-carrying member of the Canon Defense League.


----------



## sebasan (Dec 28, 2016)

I have stopped reading DPReview a long time ago. They are not good photographers and make totally biased reviews.


----------



## rwvaughn (Dec 28, 2016)

The real problem with dpreview and the numerous photography magazine reviews is that many of the websites and all of the magazines are supported by ad revenue from camera manufacturers. Open any magazine and three fourths of the pages in it are ads. Look at many of the popular websites and count the ads in the left or right column.

Have you honestly ever seen a review in a magazine, or online, that said a camera body or lens was absolute junk and you should not buy it? Have you seen a review, or opinion, that absolutely blasted a camera vendor? You never will because the publisher realizes the moment they tell the truth about a product that is inferior they get punished by a retraction of ad revenue.

You have to read between the lines of nearly all reviews to determine whether the reviewers "minor found faults" with a product really signal larger issues. Some companies products stand on their own while other companies whore their brand name out with large ad buys to fool the consumer. You can tell the whores from the really good camera product manufacturers.... five large ads from one third party manufacturer in a recent magazine compared to one small ad from both Canon and Nikon. Ads and reviews don't always represent quality and reliability.


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Dec 28, 2016)

The M is starting to look better. I will take a look when my SL1 dies, or getz handed down to grandchildren, in a couple of years.


----------



## Jopa (Dec 28, 2016)

Where is Dustin? Need a real review, not DPR BS...


----------



## Otara (Dec 28, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> "... can’t quite make up for the fact that you can arguably get more camera for less money elsewhere. "
> 
> Totally ridiculous. There is NO other APS-C mirrorless system (bodies plus lenses) on the entire market offering better price-performance ratio. Not that the Canon EOS M5 is "perfect" in any way. Or "fully competitive" in all aspects (sensor, DR, AF system, ...) with all other manufacturer's offerings. Lots of angles for criticism. But not for price-performance. After all, Sony A6500 is not any cheaper and Oly want to charge 2 grand for a quarter-sensor mFT camera ("OMD OMG II").
> 
> ...



I view bias as a sign of differences becoming more meaningless from an absolute perspective. 

The real giant is the drop in ILC in general. People need to buy new cameras less and less, so there has to be an argument why you'd buy any new camera at all vs the flood of perfectly usable secondhand ones around that is growing larger and larger as an alternative. For that you have to create reasons not to buy one as well.


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 28, 2016)

As always, I skip what they wrote and go straight to the data. The RAW images from the M5 compare very closely to those from the 7D2 at high ISO (like 1600). It is still a good 2-stops worse than the 1Dx2, as it should given the cost difference. The Kodak gray scale seems to show an extra block or two on the black end of the scale compared to the 7D2. Initial data look promising. Now I just need to wait for the price to come down.


----------



## sephknite (Dec 28, 2016)

Jopa said:


> Where is Dustin? Need a real review, not DPR BS...



I think Dustin put up an overview. I'm waiting for his awesome review of the same camera as well.


----------



## Quackator (Dec 28, 2016)

The M5 is a great camera, love it very much, carry it as 
mandatory minimum and always along the big ones.

It has only one really big downside: Canon has deliberately 
crippled it so it can't tether to a computer, not via USB nor Wifi.

Signing up für Canon image gateway is no option, because
that lacks remote control via EOS utility, only works with
an active internet connection on the computer and requires
that a copy of the images be uploaded to CIG.

Add insult to injury and look at the fact that even the cheapest 
Rebel can tether without any problems at a third of the price.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 29, 2016)

I may end up buying the M5, but I was hoping for a more pro body. Something that could produce images and video that, in a pinch, could stand beside the 5D4 and the upcoming C100 mk III, which means it needed some form of 4K, and excellent 1080p. A full swivel screen would make a huge difference, and of course more primes.
Make it and charge accordingly.


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 29, 2016)

Quackator said:


> The M5 is a great camera, love it very much, carry it as
> mandatory minimum and always along the big ones.
> 
> It has only one really big downside: Canon has deliberately
> crippled it so it can't tether to a computer, not via USB nor Wifi.



I always love to hear things like this .. you got facts that it was deliberate?

when magic lantern looked at it being a possible to add in after the fact, they found that the core liveview was "wired" differently and simply unable to hook into the canon API's - it was running twice as fast as a DSLR as far as framerate and the EOS utility simply wasn't able to interface.

is that deliberate crippling? 

Not really, to support contrast detect you do have to run at faster framerates. the M5 runs at up to 4 times faster than a DSLR as far as liveview framerates.

could they fix it? perhaps, but it would require according to magic lantern when they pulled it apart and looked it, not an insignificant effort.

Needless to say, the requirements of mirrorless require faster framerates, and it's hardly "crippling" by not supporting it.

Deliberately crippling means that they could have done it, and simply switched the feature off. this is probably not the case. Not all canon cameras connect via wifi to the computer either.

#assumptions


----------



## Woody (Dec 29, 2016)

Agreed. Glad that you recognize this too.



AvTvM said:


> "... can’t quite make up for the fact that you can arguably get more camera for less money elsewhere. "
> 
> Totally ridiculous. There is NO other APS-C mirrorless system (bodies plus lenses) on the entire market offering better price-performance ratio. Not that the Canon EOS M5 is "perfect" in any way. Or "fully competitive" in all aspects (sensor, DR, AF system, ...) with all other manufacturer's offerings. Lots of angles for criticism. But not for price-performance. After all, Sony A6500 is not any cheaper and Oly want to charge 2 grand for a quarter-sensor mFT camera ("OMD OMG II").
> 
> ...


----------



## cookestudios (Dec 29, 2016)

rwvaughn said:


> The real problem with dpreview and the numerous photography magazine reviews is that many of the websites and all of the magazines are supported by ad revenue from camera manufacturers. Open any magazine and three fourths of the pages in it are ads. Look at many of the popular websites and count the ads in the left or right column.
> 
> Have you honestly ever seen a review in a magazine, or online, that said a camera body or lens was absolute junk and you should not buy it? Have you seen a review, or opinion, that absolutely blasted a camera vendor? You never will because the publisher realizes the moment they tell the truth about a product that is inferior they get punished by a retraction of ad revenue.
> 
> You have to read between the lines of nearly all reviews to determine whether the reviewers "minor found faults" with a product really signal larger issues. Some companies products stand on their own while other companies whore their brand name out with large ad buys to fool the consumer. You can tell the whores from the really good camera product manufacturers.... five large ads from one third party manufacturer in a recent magazine compared to one small ad from both Canon and Nikon. Ads and reviews don't always represent quality and reliability.



I'm an editor at Fstoppers and I can assure you that the camera gear review game is not the biased manufacturer-pleasing game some people think it is. It does us no good to undermine our credibility in the long run.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 29, 2016)

cookestudios said:


> rwvaughn said:
> 
> 
> > The real problem with dpreview and the numerous photography magazine reviews is that many of the websites and all of the magazines are supported by ad revenue from camera manufacturers. Open any magazine and three fourths of the pages in it are ads. Look at many of the popular websites and count the ads in the left or right column.
> ...



Give me a break. Fstoppers stopped being interesting or relevant years ago, now it is largely just rehashed marketing waffle and irrelevant drivel gleaned from any number of other sites doing the same thing all driven by the need for clicks for advertising dollars and the inevitable linked in classes, cruises, and teaching courses.

DPR have undermined their credibility on many occasions, we have had the discussion here with Rishi from DPR himself, it takes three seconds to tie him up in knots he can't get out of. DxO are the same, though they don't engage (probably because most posters here don't speak French!), however it would take somebody like Neuro here ten seconds to give them ample examples of their own bias (their own camera's RAW performance for a start!) and mistakes they refuse to admit.

There are a couple of standout sites and posters who have earned respect and the honest expectation of impartiality. I'd put Roger at Lens Rentals at the top of a very small number.


----------



## ritholtz (Dec 29, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> "... can’t quite make up for the fact that you can arguably get more camera for less money elsewhere. "
> 
> Totally ridiculous. There is NO other APS-C mirrorless system (bodies plus lenses) on the entire market offering better price-performance ratio. Not that the Canon EOS M5 is "perfect" in any way. Or "fully competitive" in all aspects (sensor, DR, AF system, ...) with all other manufacturer's offerings. Lots of angles for criticism. But not for price-performance. After all, Sony A6500 is not any cheaper and Oly want to charge 2 grand for a quarter-sensor mFT camera ("OMD OMG II").
> 
> ...


I am really surprised 1dx2 didn't make it to 2016 product of year. It is best of both the worlds and everything. It has one of the best view finder focusing system and video AF system. DPReview kind ignores target user group most of the time and provides detailed review. They excused DR in D5 and lack of on sensor focusing system for D500 during video based on some imaginary target users though. M5 is pretty good if some one already with Canon. But others it is really not that much better than A6000. Sony released a6300 and a6500 later.

I actually like Canon M lens. There are few but covers lot of range for the price with good iq. EF to M mount adapter is also pretty straightforward unlike Sony adapters for EF or A mount. But Sony released lot of FE lens which can be used on Sony crop mirrorless.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 29, 2016)

exactly!

sources/reviewers i trust most are:
* roger cicala/ lensrentals.com
* klaus schroiff / photozone.de
* dustin Abbott / canonrumors.com
* brian carnahan / thedigitalpicture.com

third tier - clearly biased, but still some good nuggets of information: 
* ming thein
* photoscala.de
* lenstip.pl
* Thom Hogan / bythom.com
* dpreview.com

zero trust, least useful:
* DXO

* kenrockwell.com - seriously!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 29, 2016)

JMZawodny said:


> As always, I skip what they wrote and go straight to the data. The RAW images from the M5 compare very closely to those from the 7D2 at high ISO (like 1600). It is still a good 2-stops worse than the 1Dx2, as it should given the cost difference. The Kodak gray scale seems to show an extra block or two on the black end of the scale compared to the 7D2. Initial data look promising. Now I just need to wait for the price to come down.



The noise is 2-stops worse not because of the price difference but because the area of the sensor is under half that of the 1DX II and there are more pixels. Cropped to the same size, the IQ of my M5 is somewhat better than that of my 7DII and nearly as as good as my 5DS R.

Actually, the dpreview is pretty complimentary.


----------



## M_S (Dec 29, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> exactly!
> 
> sources/reviewers i trust most are:
> * roger cicala/ lensrentals.com
> ...



Dustin Abbott finds most of the stuff he tests great. For me there is too much "pleasing" in there.


----------



## hachu21 (Dec 29, 2016)

Don't forget digital photgraphy is becoming a mature market.
the early crazy years are gone, and now it will be difficult to name a really bad product based on measurable data (at least objective ones).

Yep, almost all cameras are now good technically. The last I remenber are EOS M1 and Pentak K-01, both of them produce very good results.


----------



## infared (Dec 29, 2016)

I have a Canon FF system...That's fine. There are other capable systems as well.
I also have an extensive, small mirrorless system.
It isn't Canon..."to me"...for obvious reasons.
Funny how so many are hooked on a brand name and attack the reviewers who repeatedly state obvious facts about the M system cameras. 
Very relevant ones. They are facts. Not vendetta.
It is amusing.


----------



## jebrady03 (Dec 29, 2016)

M_S said:


> Dustin Abbott finds most of the stuff he tests great. For me there is too much "pleasing" in there.



Maybe that's because most products released today are 95% great and it's that last 5% that sets one product apart from another. But for MOST people, practically anything released today will produce great images (be it a body or lens). Dustin tends to review things from a real-world perspective. It's obvious from his reviews and if you're completely oblivious to the obvious, he actually flat-out states it on occasion. In the real world, gear today is very, very good. What's telling to me, for Dustin's reviews, is what he ends up adding to his kit. THAT is the true measure of "real world" as it seems to me that Dustin is NOT in the habit of wasting money and he tends to add pieces of gear that are truly unique in some capability or another (or several) and/or pieces which are an excellent value for the performance they provide relative to the other offerings on the market.


----------



## rajdude (Dec 29, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> .........<p>Most of the reviews we’ve read about the Canon EOS M5 have been relatively positive, especially when compared to the first iterations of the EOS M system. ......



Ummm....have we read it carefully? 8) *Did anyone notice the fatal flaw in the camera??*, as far as I am concerned? I am referring to the problem reported by dpreview where they claim that the shutter is unresponsive. 

On page 7:
_"Shutter button lacks responsiveness"_
and later on in the same page:

_"and the shutter can be unresponsive at times; mashing it to grab a fleeting moment won't always fire off an image, as you need to intentionally half-press before every shot for reliable results. "_

Also on page 4 there is more detail:

_"Intentionally half-pressing before shots or keeping the shutter half-pressed between shots will result in the most responsive experience (because focus and exposure are already locked), but if you take your finger off the shutter button and then mash it (perhaps to capture an unexpected moment), you'll be greeted with a solid delay before the camera fires, even if your subject hasn't changed much in depth. Unfortunately, even attempting to circumvent the camera's need to lock focus and exposure by enabling back-button (or manual) focus and shooting in full manual doesn't resolve this issue."
_

For this day and age, this is totally unacceptable especially in a thousand dollar camera!   
Remember, we are not handling a cellphone here. Even most current point and shoots will fire off their shutter if the button is mashed. I got a Olympus TG-4, it sure does. ;D

My 6D will ABSOLUTELY 100% fire off a shot if I press the shutter, no matter what, focus and/or exposure locked or not (I use back button focus). ;D

I had a little bit of discussion there about this problem:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m5-review?comment=3321734778


I am still taking all this with a pinch of salt......I gotta have a M5 in my own hands to verify this....before I will buy it. I had one on pre-order, I cancelled it....hoping for a better deal....which of course, will not happen any time soon ;-)


PS: About bias....well, everyone is biased.....but like someone said above, read between the lines. You may find flaws which they may not "shout" about.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 29, 2016)

rajdude said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > .........<p>Most of the reviews we’ve read about the Canon EOS M5 have been relatively positive, especially when compared to the first iterations of the EOS M system. ......
> ...



A major problem for sure!
Another one is that the camera will not power down if left alone. If you forget to turn it off, the battery will be dead when you pick it up next.
Hopefully Canon can fix some of these things in firmware.


----------



## rajdude (Dec 29, 2016)

Etienne said:


> A major problem for sure!
> Another one is that the camera will not power down if left alone. If you forget to turn it off, the battery will be dead when you pick it up next.
> Hopefully Canon can fix some of these things in firmware.




Oh yes! That too! Thanks for posting.
I am in the habit of leaving my 6D on all the time, never drains the battery. With this, I will have to worry about it. Isn't there a auto-shut off setting in it?


----------



## ritholtz (Dec 29, 2016)

rajdude said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > .........<p>Most of the reviews we’ve read about the Canon EOS M5 have been relatively positive, especially when compared to the first iterations of the EOS M system. ......
> ...


Something odd here. 70D has touch focus option. It fires a shot as soon as one touches screen. Focusing, metering happens instantly. Not sure why it needs half press for focusing/metering.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Something odd here. 70D has touch focus option. It fires a shot as soon as one touches screen. Focusing, metering happens instantly. Not sure why it needs half press for focusing/metering.



PowerShot firmware base? Or just a firmware screwup...


----------



## Act444 (Dec 29, 2016)

Shutter lag has always been a big issue with the M cameras - which is a major factor why they can never truly replace my DSLR for most serious shooting. In handling the M5 at a local store, it certainly feels a tad snappier than my M10, but at the cost of a larger size. However, it has nowhere near the responsiveness of my 5D3, or even my 5DSR. That being said, I really do like the EVF implementation on the M5 as well as the button placement - feels more like a "real" camera in my hands than a toy that happens to take photos. The increased FPS may even mean it may be competent at shooting slow to moderate action, but haven't been able to verify this (with the other M cameras, forget it). 

I might see what the new M camera reportedly coming in Feb is all about before making any further decisions...there will always be desire for an M10-size camera in my collection for certain environments I shoot in - more speed (e.g., DPAF) and at least a mode dial is all I'd ask for, and if those items can be added to the next one without added bulk, then that'll be good enough for me.


----------



## Wizardly (Dec 29, 2016)

A meta-review of the DPR review:

Summary: DPR phones in another review, measures almost nothing, and provides us with yet another single-user review by the author; whether or not the authors impressions and requirements match anyone else's is highly suspect. The review is utterly unhelpful for making a buying decision for either a new camera or replacing an old one. One wonders if DPR continues to be relevant. The golden age of being the go-to database of cameras continues to fade into distant memory.

Page 1:
Peer class is anemic. Should include: 80D, D7200, OM-D E-M5.2, X-E2s. It's not like there is a size limit on data tables.

Should also include a comparison to predecessor EOS M3.

Page 3:
Zero comparison to predecessor, contemporaries, not even a photo. Surely someone at DPR can take a photo of cameras.

Zero images of the actual interface. What am I getting, EOS interface, Powershot interface, something else?

"...as you'd expect, some larger lenses can lead to an unbalanced feeling..." and I expect DPR to point out that this is a problem of all DSLM cameras given their small size, including Sony, Fuji, Olympus, etc....

"Inexplicably, the Auto ISO behavior on the EOS M5 has been crippled..." avoid over-dramatization.
"...as it severely limits the usefulness of Auto ISO in general." avoid over-dramatization.
The sky is not falling. It's simply not as useful as it could be.

Page 4:
Not a single mention of AF sensitivity. EV range? Maximum/minimum aperture? Accuracy test data? Time to lock on?

"Shutter blackout (either in the viewfinder or on the screen) is longer than most competitors at this point; it's long enough to be a problem even with subjects moving at modest speeds and at moderate focal lengths." You need to provide data.

"...intentionally half-pressing before shots or keeping the shutter half-pressed between shots will result in the most responsive experience (because focus and exposure are already locked), but if you take your finger off the shutter button and then mash it (perhaps to capture an unexpected moment), you'll be greeted with a solid delay before the camera fires..." How long of a delay. Provide data.

"It should be noted, though, that overall, the EOS M5 makes for a more responsive live view experience in almost every way than the EOS 80D - right down to the 7fps burst shooting with autofocus (9fps with it locked)." Exactly how so? Cite examples. What is the 80D burst rate since you mention the M5?

"As far as the EVF, if you lower the camera for a fraction of a second to re-check the action and raise it back to your eye, you'll likely miss a shot due to the delay in switching from the EVF to the screen and back again..." How long is the delay? Measure it, provide data.

DPR used to provide tables of performance of the camera and relative to its peers. No longer. It seems DPR simply stopped testing cameras entirely. Instead, we get an impressions page instead of data.

Page 5:
DPR continues to fail to measure the ISO invariant point. For the 80D it was measured at around 500 by photonstophotos.net. Comparison 
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/Sensor_Characteristics.htm

Page 6:
"Thankfully, rolling shutter is well-tamed while shooting 24p, and almost non-existent if you choose to shoot in 60p." A comparison would be excellent here. Please create a standard test and measure. Vertical stripes at a set horizontal velocity should provide a simple enough test.

How good is the built in mic? What is the sampling? What is the codec? How are the file sizes?

Page 7:
"Native lens lineup is sorely lacking." Unless you count that EF and EF-S lenses are fully functional and are often comparably sized to their DSLM counterparts even with the adapter (which adds 23mm to the lens).

"Low light image quality significantly worse than peers" avoid hyperbole. Measured results place the difference at 1/3 of a stop, hardly significant.

"Limited buffer for burst shooting" Considering you never told us what the buffer actually was how are we to know?

"Auto ISO almost unusably limited" avoid hyperbole.

"1080p video capture lacks detail" on the previous page you just got done telling us how it was better than the competition in this area! Make up your mind!


----------



## jebrady03 (Dec 29, 2016)

Excellent post/criticisms, Wizardly.


----------



## ritholtz (Dec 29, 2016)

Wizardly said:


> A meta-review of the DPR review:
> 
> Summary: DPR phones in another review, measures almost nothing, and provides us with yet another single-user review by the author; whether or not the authors impressions and requirements match anyone else's is highly suspect. The review is utterly unhelpful for making a buying decision for either a new camera or replacing an old one. One wonders if DPR continues to be relevant. The golden age of being the go-to database of cameras continues to fade into distant memory.
> 
> ...


5d4 is the only camera where they provided measurable data for rolling shutter asked people don't get ahead of themselves.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/7057004492/don-t-get-ahead-of-yourself-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-rolling-shutter-test

Thanks


----------



## Quackator (Dec 29, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Quackator said:
> 
> 
> > The M5 is a great camera, love it very much, carry it as
> ...



I love hearing things like this, when people have no clue.

The camera can tether to smartphones and tablets, and with a CIG account
it will even transfer images via infrastructure mode directly to computers, 
when logged in to the same router/access point.

So, the hardware can easily do it. Infrastructure mode is even better 
than 95% of the competition.



> Deliberately crippling means that they could have done it, (...)



Exactly. Instead they decided to try and force CIG on M5 users.


----------



## M_S (Dec 30, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> M_S said:
> 
> 
> > Dustin Abbott finds most of the stuff he tests great. For me there is too much "pleasing" in there.
> ...


Why a review then? If everything today is great, then there is no need to point that out. If products tend to get better, then the categories if one product is top or flop have to be sharpened. 
If you already bought the product and need the assurance that you bought a fine product, his reviews are quite good for that and perhaps thats the target audience (as there is an audience for everything).


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Dec 30, 2016)

Etienne said:


> Another one is that the camera will not power down if left alone. If you forget to turn it off, the battery will be dead when you pick it up next.
> Hopefully Canon can fix some of these things in firmware.


That one is not true. In the submenu 2 of the wrench menu you can configure Power Saving: Auto power down can be set as 30sec., 1min, 3min, 5min, 10min and deactivated.
It is "only" a stand-by mode. Last night I forgot to switch off the Cam, but today I found it in stand-by mode. Battery shows full charge. So the current consumption seems to be very very low.

Frank


----------



## Etienne (Dec 30, 2016)

Photorex said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Another one is that the camera will not power down if left alone. If you forget to turn it off, the battery will be dead when you pick it up next.
> ...



That's great to hear. Thanks for the correction!


----------



## dak723 (Dec 30, 2016)

M_S said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > M_S said:
> ...



A review is a review - not necessarily a critique. A reviewer can feel free to point out his or her observations. If they think everything is great that is a perfectly legitimate review. Perhaps you believe that there is "no need to point that out" but your statement has no logical basis.

Your logic is also completely flawed that comparisons have to be sharpened as products improve. The reverse is obviously true. As DR has improved for example, those differences between brands has become increasingly UNimportant since all cameras now have enough DR to produce virtually identical results. Sharpening those differences is misleading and makes it seem like the differences are greater than they are. The same could be said for AF, numbers of frames per second, etc. The differences are now more negligible than ever.

I realize that many of the folks here are basically whiners and complainers who are unhappy with the Canon offerings. When someone points out how incredible cameras are today - and that they take photos that can barely be improved - they don't like to hear that. But that is the truth is many photographers eyes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2016)

dak723 said:


> I realize that many of the folks here are basically whiners and complainers who are unhappy with the Canon offerings. When someone points out how incredible cameras are today - and that they take photos that can barely be improved - they don't like to hear that. But that is the truth [in] many photographers eyes.



+1


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 30, 2016)

Quackator said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Quackator said:
> ...



I love hearing from someone that has no clue.

EOS utility is a legacy product from canon that does not support according to Magic Lantern different framerates.

the tablet and phone application is not a legacy application.

hard to think it through .. i know.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 30, 2016)

EOS Utility is bundled software with every current Canon camera (at least EOS camera, not sure for Powershots). I am not aware that EOS Utility was declared legacy software by Canon. Do you have a source for your claim?

Canon WiFI implementation (like Nikon's) generally sucks and was further NERFED and CRIPPLED in M5 (as in some previous EOS M bodies already). No amount of demagogic tricks by Canon Defense League members can distract from this fact.


----------



## M_S (Dec 30, 2016)

dak723 said:


> M_S said:
> 
> 
> > jebrady03 said:
> ...


Difference review and critique: Total nonsense. A review can spot the pros and cons as well. Just look at some review sides and be done with it. Semantics always come into the play when there is no base for the discusion behind it.
Adjusting measurements when products are getting better and better, or more so, more undistinguishable: Totally the norm, e.g the gaming industry. What you point out may be true, but to be able to differ between products, and that is what a good review delivers (to set it in the context, what is out there and is a competing product), is normally a good sign, that the review is not all praise and glory. Thedigitalpicture offers alternatitives at the end of each review and does a good job in pointing out flaws and whats not to like. In essence: the bread and butter of it all. I am not interested in the super good stuff, the "pleasing" and "surprisingly good", words that are told a lot in the reviews of Mr Abbott. That can be read all over the net in the bought forum post, bought "user" reviews etc. What's key is to know where the product misses in regards to other products on the market. This is the useful information that really helps the buying descision. At least for me. 
I am not lecturing people or say they are dumb and are whiners, I just say, for me(!), the reviews of his are too positive and just good for show. Its a matter of preference. I am not into bashing and saying Canon is utter crap. If so, at least for the latest Canon offerings, its my personal opinion, which I sometimes like to write here. 
Heck, I am a Canon shooter since my G12, and now still with my trusty Mark III. But taking it to the whining alley all the time when different opinions and Canon critique comes around the corner isn't a style which I tend to follow and is an attitude I find very BS.


----------



## Quackator (Dec 30, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> EOS utility is a legacy product from canon (...)



.... that is delivered with every serious Canon camera so far.....

Legacy? Get real......


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 31, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> EOS Utility is bundled software with every current Canon camera (at least EOS camera, not sure for Powershots). I am not aware that EOS Utility was declared legacy software by Canon. Do you have a source for your claim?
> 
> Canon WiFI implementation (like Nikon's) generally sucks and was further NERFED and CRIPPLED in M5 (as in some previous EOS M bodies already). No amount of demagogic tricks by Canon Defense League members can distract from this fact.



mm sorry, forgot the word .. "API" in there. the API has a fixed framerate, and it supports older EOS products via tethering since what .. the 40D?

Supposedly it would be very difficult for canon to adjust this strictly for the M's that operate at a higher framerate than EOS bodies.

regular EOS runs at 30 frames per second. the M's ran at 60, and the M5 runs at 120.

anyways, it's not deliberately crippling, with the higher framerate that the M's need to run for on sensor AF, it makes it incompatible with EOS Utility, that has to support the wider scope of EOS cameras.

Edit: and how is canon's wifi nerfed? the use of BLE is a step forward.


----------



## cookestudios (Dec 31, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> cookestudios said:
> 
> 
> > rwvaughn said:
> ...



Sorry to hear you feel that way. You're always welcome to get in touch with us if you have ideas for improvement or things you'd like to see us cover or if you'd be interested in contributing.


----------



## bholliman (Dec 31, 2016)

rajdude said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > .........<p>Most of the reviews we’ve read about the Canon EOS M5 have been relatively positive, especially when compared to the first iterations of the EOS M system. ......
> ...



I've had an M5 for several weeks now and have been shooting extensively with it. To tell you the truth, I never noticed the shutter being unresponsive. After reading this I went back and did some side-by-side comparisons with my 5DsR. In single shot mode, the M5 shutter does take a fraction of a second longer to take a picture than the 5D, but to me its hardly noticeable. If I'm shooting people, I generally using servo and continuous drive mode anyway, so not and issue with moving subjects. 

Comparisons to a cell phone are humorous, the M5 is a very capable camera.


----------



## gordonbb (Jan 1, 2017)

I decided a few years ago to wait until DPR published a review of the 1DX before paying any further attention to them.


----------



## Adrianf (Jan 1, 2017)

My concern is vignetting. Photozone have reviewed three EOS-M lenses and all exhibit serious vignetting at the shorter focal lengths. For example, it was -2.9 stops difference centre-to-edge on the 11-22 EF-M at 11mm. Compare that to their review of the 10-22mm EF-S at 10mm on an APS-C sensor and the value was -1.42 stops. 
They were concerned that the fault might actually be the camera (an M3). They suggest it could be the short lens-to-sensor distance that it the problem. If so, then maybe using EF or EF-S lenses on the adaptor may fix the problem - but then the size advantage is being lost... 
As an owner of many Canon cameras (Compact, APS-C and FF) and lenses for many years I was just about to buy an M3 until I read their reviews. What I'm now wondering is, is the M5 any better? Or is the vignetting an inevitable feature of the EOS-M design concept?


----------



## studio1972 (Jan 1, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> "... can’t quite make up for the fact that you can arguably get more camera for less money elsewhere. "
> 
> Totally ridiculous. There is NO other APS-C mirrorless system (bodies plus lenses) on the entire market offering better price-performance ratio. Not that the Canon EOS M5 is "perfect" in any way. Or "fully competitive" in all aspects (sensor, DR, AF system, ...) with all other manufacturer's offerings. Lots of angles for criticism. But not for price-performance. After all, Sony A6500 is not any cheaper and Oly want to charge 2 grand for a quarter-sensor mFT camera ("OMD OMG II").



They are probably comparing it to cameras like the XT10 which is cheaper and has a much better lens selection and upgrade path to the XT2 etc, which is in a different league to the Canon.


----------



## njene (Jan 2, 2017)

Most review sites can be biased one way or another

So sites like DPReview , I would read and compare it with other reviews to determine what I can have confidence in trusting


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jan 2, 2017)

Adrianf said:


> My concern is vignetting. Photozone have reviewed three EOS-M lenses and all exhibit serious vignetting at the shorter focal lengths. For example, it was -2.9 stops difference centre-to-edge on the 11-22 EF-M at 11mm. Compare that to their review of the 10-22mm EF-S at 10mm on an APS-C sensor and the value was -1.42 stops.
> They were concerned that the fault might actually be the camera (an M3). They suggest it could be the short lens-to-sensor distance that it the problem. If so, then maybe using EF or EF-S lenses on the adaptor may fix the problem - but then the size advantage is being lost...
> As an owner of many Canon cameras (Compact, APS-C and FF) and lenses for many years I was just about to buy an M3 until I read their reviews. What I'm now wondering is, is the M5 any better? Or is the vignetting an inevitable feature of the EOS-M design concept?



Below is an out-of-camera jpeg that has been downsized for easy viewing; there were no other corrections in what the M2/11-22mm (at 11mm) was able to acquire--except that the in-camera option to correct for vignetting has been activated.

I do worry about the M3 at wide angles, though, based on the same review that you've cited...still haven't bought one!


----------



## Adrianf (Jan 2, 2017)

The in camera compensation boosts the corner brightness. That will increase noise in the corners. 
Maybe Canon realise that there's a problem and that's the reason why they haven't released many EF-M lenses?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2017)

Adrianf said:


> The in camera compensation boosts the corner brightness. That will increase noise in the corners.
> Maybe Canon realise that there's a problem and that's the reason why they haven't released many EF-M lenses?



So instead they released the 16-35mm f/2.8L III that costs more than all the EF-M lenses combined and has >4 stops of vignetting? 

Actually, given the duration of (relatively short) and extent of investment in (relatively light) the M, the number of lenses – 7 so far – is pretty good, IMO.


----------



## Adrianf (Jan 2, 2017)

Hmmm. I hadn't previously heard of the 16-35 problem - but that's on FF and the EOS-M is only APS-C.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2017)

Adrianf said:


> Hmmm. I hadn't previously heard of the 16-35 problem - but that's on FF and the EOS-M is only APS-C.



So is your point that Canon isn't releasing lenses for the M because of the 'vignetting problem' for a consumer-oriented system (lots of full auto jpg shooters, few pixel peepers) with a current maximum lens cost of $500 and bodies costing up to $1000, but has no problem releasing lenses with worse vignetting for an enthusiast- and pro-oriented system with bodies and lenses running thousands of dollars? Sorry, but that logic just doesn't pass the sniff test.


----------



## eric_ykchan (Jan 2, 2017)

Still comparing to the first generation?


----------



## AYD (Jan 2, 2017)

I have been a Canon and Pentax user for more than 30 years and currently use a 6D, 7D MkII and K-1.

I recently got a M5 based on its specs and potential. I will clearly say that it is not meant to replace a DSLR with OVF, and it is aimed as a primary camera for enthusiasts and a back-up camera for pros.
Regarding the unresponsiveness of the shutter button, it will NOT fire if it hasn't locked focus, a item aimed at beginners and enthusiasts, and not pros. There is no option to enable shutter firing without focus NOT being locked.
This is a problem if you let focus go and then mash the shutter. This could easily be fixed in firmware, in-fact the 80D does this, I believe.

The touchscreen is very sensitive and I use it for candid photos with touch focus and fire shutter. Works great, unless the light is below ~0 EV and the focus beam is not effective, for whatever reason, such as the subject being too far or too close.

Another Dpreview complaint was regarding viewfinder blackout. There is no blackout while shooting as long as the buffer isn't filled up. Then the blackout isn't viewfinder blackout (since you shouldn't be shooting when the buffer is emptying to the card).

I find the 7D Mark II to better at higher ISO's by 1/2 stop and worse than the M5 at 100~200 ISO by a hair. The 4 extra MP in the M% makes up for this.

The biggest advantage of the M5 and EF-M native lenses is size and weight, that makes a huge difference at times, such as hiking or travelling and being inconspicuous.

The vignetting on the EF-M lenses isn't a deal breaker, at least since it is at wide open apertures and can be fixed in post. All the current lenses are better than most similar lenses at the price points that they sell at.
Hence its not the end of the world if you lose/damage a $400 lens versus a $1,500 or more lens. Hence as a back-up camera really works with DSLR's. The compatibility with EF/EF-S lenses with the adapter maintains full functionality, unlike with other brands, a big plus for anyone invested in Canon Glass.

The tilting VF is great for macros, candids/selfies and videos etc. 

It has 2 Custom functions unlike some other competitors in this price range.

It isnt weather sealed but fits nicely in a ziploc freezer bag, unlike a DSLR.

All in all, a NICE camera with very few down-sides what what you expect in this segment. 

To me it is definitely a GOLD as opposed to a Silver from DPR. DPR needs to align with price-points and compare cameras with their competitors in that price range, as a SYSTEM.

No pint comparing with Sony 6xxx and Olympus micro 4/3rds and Fujis when their lenses are sometimes worse and the good ones cost 2-3 times as much.


----------



## Adrianf (Jan 2, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Adrianf said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm. I hadn't previously heard of the 16-35 problem - but that's on FF and the EOS-M is only APS-C.
> ...



Nope - that was not my point. What I was trying to say is that Canon have failed in what should be an easier technical challenge. Surely it should be easier to avoid vignetting on APS-C?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2017)

Adrianf said:


> What I was trying to say is that Canon have failed in what should be an easier technical challenge. Surely it should be easier to avoid vignetting on APS-C?



Got it. Sure, it's easier to avoid vignetting on APS-C...just make bigger lenses. Except that a main point of the M line is the small size of both cameras and lenses. 

Compared to the M11-22 with ~3 stops of vignetting, both the corresponding focal length EF 11-24/4L and the 'FF equivalent' EF 16-35/2.8L III have >4 stops vignetting.


----------



## Adrianf (Jan 2, 2017)

Good point, well made. So the M system is really no worse than pro standard FF gear. Hmmm. Maybe I will buy an M3 then....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2017)

Adrianf said:


> Good point, well made. So the M system is really no worse than pro standard FF gear. Hmmm. Maybe I will buy an M3 then....



Well...except for the smaller sensor., and a few other little things. 

But indeed, APS-C cameras are generally very good, particularly in good light, and have substantial advantages in terms of cost and size for both bodies and lenses. Still, if I'm shooting my kids during indoor activities (gymnastics, horseback riding in an arena, etc.), I'll reach for the 1D X and an f/2.8 zoom.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 2, 2017)

Adrianf said:


> Nope - that was not my point. What I was trying to say is that Canon have failed in what should be an easier technical challenge. Surely it should be easier to avoid vignetting on APS-C?



Unless you reduce the flange distance, then you increase the technical challenge. Since mirrorless wants to go smaller, the smaller flange distance can be an issue, as it is on the FF Sonys.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 5, 2017)

Adrianf said:


> My concern is vignetting. Photozone have reviewed three EOS-M lenses and all exhibit serious vignetting at the shorter focal lengths.



in the real world it's not much of an issue. canon uses a pretty strong contrast curve on JPG's which is how photozone measures vignetting.


----------



## crashpc (Jan 6, 2017)

That´s what I started thinking after some chat about vignetting problem. They picked on my discussion post (corner shading) and sticked to it (even rewrited the review), even when it´s not only problem alone, which causes it. 

Now we have three serious aspects...
Lens vignette
corner shading on the sensor
contrast curves


----------

