# Review: The Canon EOS M5 Sensor Gets the DXOMark Treatment, Scores a 77.



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 1, 2017)

```
DXOMark has completed their review of the 24mp sensor inside the Canon EOS M5. The new EOS M camera came out 5 points ahead of the EOS M3 with a score of 77. This unsurprisingly puts it on par with the image quality of the EOS 80D.</p>
<p><strong>From DXOMark:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>On paper, the M5 looks like a mini-EOS 80D; however, that’s not quite the case. The built-in electronic viewfinder, the additional controls, and 7 fps burst with continuous AF (9 fps with AF locked) are all welcome additions. Taken together with the 24.2-MP Dual Pixel AF CMOS sensor and Digital IS, it all signals Canon’s intention to compete more seriously with rivals in the mirrorless segment. With hindsight, it seems like the Dual Pixel AF CMOS was designed with mirrorless in mind. Image quality is similar to that of the sensor found on the EOS 80D. <a href="https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-M5-sensor-review-Made-for-mirrorless">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Most reviewers continue to agree that the EOS M5 is Canon’s best mirrorless offering yet.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## jeanluc (Mar 1, 2017)

The IQ of the M5 is very, very good. It is better for what I shoot (landscapes) than any aps-c camera I have used, but I have never used an 80D. I have used almost every other Canon asp-s offering.

The dual pixel AF when set up on a tripod and using live view rocks, even at night. It is better than the live view focusing on the 5D3.

At higher ISO's (>800 or so) the usual asp-c/FF differences become apparent. No surprise there.

The shadow noise at base ISO even when taking long star exposures is very low.

AF speed and frame rate is actually pretty good for (my basic) bird photography.

The ergonomics and handling is the best of any MILC I've used. Minimal menu scrolling and subsequent four letter words. I have an M3; I like the built in EVF a lot better. Less to worry about losing or somehow breaking off.

For me, the main reason to not use a FF dslr is size. Which means any MILC I use will likely be aps-c. Which means some compromises. But with the M5, there are not too many.

I still use my 5D4/D3 for any dedicated landscape photo shoots, but putting the M5 and the 11-22 in the bag for any more challenging scrambles to better viewpoints is a great option.

Anyway, for anybody on the fence, if you are coming from Canon FF, you will really like the M5. It will augment, but not replace your FF quite yet.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 1, 2017)

For reference...

- A


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 1, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> For reference...
> 
> - A


It has less DR than 80d? What is the difference?


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 1, 2017)

ritholtz said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > For reference...
> ...



could be thermal. the M5 is clocking out at 120hz for the EVF display.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 1, 2017)

Well, let's not congratulate ourselves just yet, the Sony NEX-7 from 2011 has a higher sensor rating (81)


----------



## jebrady03 (Mar 1, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Well, let's not congratulate ourselves just yet, the Sony NEX-7 from 2011 has a higher sensor rating (81)



Could you provide some detail regarding how DxO came up with that specific number and what that specific number represents?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 1, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Well, let's not congratulate ourselves just yet, the Sony NEX-7 from 2011 has a higher sensor rating (81)



If you take the average 5-10 point BBS handicap DXO apply to all Canon cameras it actually looks pretty good.


----------



## Hflm (Mar 1, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Well, let's not congratulate ourselves just yet, the Sony NEX-7 from 2011 has a higher sensor rating (81)


Currently it should be known that overall sensor scores aren't that useful at all (arbitrary weighting etc.). If you look at the measurement profiles of the Nex7 you see that there is quite some difference in S/N ratio and DR compared to the A6500/A6300. The Canon is better unless at base iso DR. Don't forget, too, that the crop factor of Canon is 1.6 not 1.5, favoring slightly the Sony sensor. In the future Canon should try to use BSI tech, however.


----------



## heretikeen (Mar 1, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Well, let's not congratulate ourselves just yet, the Sony NEX-7 from 2011 has a higher sensor rating (81)
> ...



And here we go again.

Let's put up our foil hats and chant: "THEY'RE OUT TO GET US! THEY'RE OUT TO GET US!"


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2017)

heretikeen said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



In that case, perhaps you would be so good as to explicitly state the formula and weightings that DxO uses to determine their overall score. While you're at it, please also explain why the majority determinant of their scores consider only performance at base ISO.


----------



## infared (Mar 1, 2017)

I don't put a whole lot of weight on DxO stats...but I do find it amusing that they rate the MFT sensor on my E-M1 II higher.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 1, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> In that case, perhaps you would be so good as to explicitly state the formula and weightings that DxO uses to determine their overall score. While you're at it, please also explain why the majority determinant of their scores consider only performance at base ISO.



You have a greater likelihood of Trump releasing his tax returns than DXO releasing the specifics of their methods. I'd love to see either the *very* complicated polynomial that governs the overall lens score calculation... or the revision history of said equation that shows that resolution was deprioritized on/around the release of the 5DS R. ;D

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 1, 2017)

heretikeen said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



Or, I can use my eyes, something relatively important in photography, and tell there is something amiss.


----------



## mitchel2002 (Mar 1, 2017)

Hflm said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Well, let's not congratulate ourselves just yet, the Sony NEX-7 from 2011 has a higher sensor rating (81)
> ...





Hflm said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Well, let's not congratulate ourselves just yet, the Sony NEX-7 from 2011 has a higher sensor rating (81)
> ...


very good point, if canons crop factor was 1.5 the sensor would be on the same level or higher then the sony sensors


----------



## davidj (Mar 2, 2017)

Regarding the dynamic range, amateurphotographer.co.uk measured the M5 to have marginally better dynamic range at all ISOs compared with the 80D.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/compactsystemcameras/canon-eos-m5-review/9

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/dslrs/canon-eos-80d-review/5


----------



## Fatalv (Mar 2, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > In that case, perhaps you would be so good as to explicitly state the formula and weightings that DxO uses to determine their overall score. While you're at it, please also explain why the majority determinant of their scores consider only performance at base ISO.
> ...



+1

We could exhaust an entire thread of jokes about "things that will happen before DXO releases their algorithm" 

At this point I don't know why it even makes headlines at CR. As far as I'm concerned, none of their data is to be trusted unless an algorithm or repeatable experiment is shown. It's akin to trying to wade through and find the truths of a habitual liar


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 2, 2017)

Love my M5, and the focus is notably accurate and consistent. However, it is not fast, relative to my DSLRs. In low light, it is downright balky. 

I find that high ISO shots aren't noticeably better than my 7D2, but I haven't pixel peeped to distinguish that scientifically. 

As always, ignore DXO's general scores, but you might use the component scores to compare one Canon sensor versus another.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Mar 2, 2017)

"Most reviewers continue to agree that the EOS M5 is Canon’s best mirrorless offering yet."

It's not like it had a big competition )


----------



## dslrdummy (Mar 2, 2017)

[email protected] said:


> Love my M5, and the focus is notably accurate and consistent. However, it is not fast, relative to my DSLRs. In low light, it is downright balky.
> 
> I find that high ISO shots aren't noticeably better than my 7D2, but I haven't pixel peeped to distinguish that scientifically.
> 
> As always, ignore DXO's general scores, but you might use the component scores to compare one Canon sensor versus another.


Given its other benefits, if the M5's high iso delivery is at least as good as the 7D2, I'd be happy with it as a second body and travel/street camera.


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 3, 2017)

blackcoffee17 said:


> "Most reviewers continue to agree that the EOS M5 is Canon’s best mirrorless offering yet."
> 
> It's not like it had a big competition )



It's a bit like saying first in a race where only one person was racing...


----------



## -1 (Mar 3, 2017)

davidj said:


> Regarding the dynamic range, amateurphotographer.co.uk measured the M5 to have marginally better dynamic range at all ISOs compared with the 80D.
> 
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/compactsystemcameras/canon-eos-m5-review/9
> 
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/dslrs/canon-eos-80d-review/5



Thank's for the links. The M5 has gone back to preview status at the time of writing this for some reason...

I would also note that the resolution seems to be more problematic for the M5 than the 80D, but that could be be the jpeg compression in the M5 samples. The 80D samples are processed RAW.

M5:






80D:





Edit: I've used the "Studio shot comparison" at the DPR to illustrate RAW vs JPEG with M5 vs 80D:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eosm5&attr13_1=canon_eos80d&attr13_2=canon_eosm5&attr13_3=canon_eos80d&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.43671125347027756&y=0.10156248035011722

And it shows the same thing regardless of JPEG or RAW...


----------



## AlanF (Mar 3, 2017)

Thanks for drawing our attention to the dpr comparison. I downloaded the RAW and jpeg data and draw the opposite view. The M5 outresolves the 80D but the 80D has better contrast. Here is a collage of the crops at iso100 of the chart where resolution is at the highest. The RAW are converted in DPP with no sharpening or noise reduction.

Edit - see my next post the better contrast is only an illusion.


----------



## -1 (Mar 3, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Thanks for drawing our attention to the dpr comparison. I downloaded the RAW and jpeg data and draw the opposite view. The M5 outresolves the 80D but the 80D has better contrast. Here is a collage of the crops at iso100 of the chart where resolution is at the highest. The RAW are converted in DPP with no sharpening or noise reduction.



I took the liberty to mark some separation issues in the RAW at 48 lpi that I think are boosted in the JPEG conversion.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 3, 2017)

On closer inspection, I see that the apparent better contrast of the 80D is only illusory. The RAW is slightly less exposed for the 80D after processing. When I match up the background, the M5 has as good contrast as the 80D. The 80D is not separating the lines at all, whereas the M5 does show some separation. The M5 does have a very good sensor.

You have to download to see the image properly as the site does its usual blurring of images.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 3, 2017)

Here's another example. You can see on the left of each about 1/3rd up that journey, difficulty and attraction are better resolved by the M5. Of course, perhaps dpr may not have focussed the 80D as well as it has the M5.

edit - again you have to download to see it.


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 4, 2017)

What I have found is that the pictures made with my M5 have really high resolution and exceptional micro contrast at 100% when shot with RAW, a good prime lens, stopped down and making sure there is zero motion and camera shake blur. 

My impression is that it has a weaker AA filter, but I could be wrong.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 24, 2017)

Fatalv said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Could not agree more DXOMark testing methods are flawed, I don't work for Canon but Ive tested hundreds of cameras without a lens, testing the lens & then the combination together. We have very exacting standards that are repeatable and using the high resolution CIPA chart with an even field illumination sphere, f stop machines, MTF, projection, etc. 
We can even show results on a theatre screen with split screen to compare lenses & cameras . Many of the Canon lenses DXOMark listed as "average" were better and we test batches of lenses not one. We can also very accurately measure DR (its amazing to see the difference sometimes between different cameras of the same type including high end cinema video cameras). 
This does tend to show up the poor Canon cameras and lenses as well as the very good ones but that's no different to any other manufacturer including Leica, Cooke & Zeiss lenses.


----------

