# Mount EF, EF-S or L lens on EOS-M --- Your thought???



## Dylan777 (Aug 25, 2013)

Most of us, including myself, got great deal on EOS-M + 22mm for $299 through BH.

I bought it for one reason - $299 deal. I simply used the M as P&S camera. EOS-M is an average compact camera that we can carry around. 

Recently, I start seeing many posts showing M mounted with EF, EF-S and even L. It’s nice that Canon came up with adapters for those lenses. 

Here is my 2cents: I think Canon should make more pancakes or something smaller for current M & M2. I just don’t see myself buying an adapter for EF, EF-S or even L lens so that I can mount it on tiny body.

Your thoughts?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2013)

I bought the $299 EOS M, and the adapter. I normally use the M with the 22/2 pancake, occasionally with the adapter and the 40/2.8 pancake. 

But the main reason I got the M in the first place was as the smallest possible travel backup body to use with my lenses, and the adapter is needed for that application.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 25, 2013)

"Would you hire a photographer shooting with M + adapter + EF/S lens for your wedding?

Failing to see the fundamental of M could end up in a long discussion "

The answer to your question is yes assuming he/she was able to accomplish the level of work I wanted. This same answer applies to any photographer for any situation as I have seen photographic geniuses make great work with disposable film cameras (gear is not of significance to me). However, this is neither here nor there and a complete leap from what we were previously discussing.

I personally have used the M as a second cam alongside the 5D3 to provide me with a varying FL. However, I have a career and do not rely on photography for any income. It is purely a hobby so I cannot vouch for whether the M would be practical in for a wedding shoot (or any other type of shoot for that matter). Nor was I stating/claiming that it would be good for any type of professional use as I have no experience in this arena. I was merely making the point that there there are an infinite number of photogs out there with an infinitely differing number of needs which cannot all be accounted for. Knowing this, I myself have found a great niche for the M for what I do. This would also then lead me to find it feasible that there are other people that feel the same way. I have diagrammed a multitude of ways in the previous thread in which the M can be perfectly sufficient for many situations and how it provides another tool that has features my other body doesn't.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Aug 25, 2013)

I bought the EF adapter (for $85 off of eBay) so I could use the M as a 2nd camera angle for video with my other lenses. Would I use it at a wedding? ...SURE! for video. for Photography, probably not. for casual photography, I'm fine with just the 22mm f2 on it. I too like it for its compact size.


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 25, 2013)

I got the M and later the adapter. But, using many of my lenses on the M sort of defeats the purpose. The 40mm f/2.8 on the adapter is a nice combination. Most of my other stuff is just too big a big lens on a small camera. It is harder to hold and use (touchscreen) handheld than the DSLR. And to mount it on a tripod also defeats my propose. I use my M as a "small" kit (22 and 40+ adapter and 18-55).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 25, 2013)

The Adapter was introduced because at first, there were going to be few native "M" lenses.

Now that Canon is dumping the "M" for a low price, I'd buy EF lenses over M lenses until I'm sure that the camera has a future. 

Nikon seems to also be seeing poor sales of their mirrorless models. Mirrorless cameras were popular at first, but sales have been dropping sharply and there may be some makers who will be forced to drop them. Its ok to be stuck with a M body that can use EF lenses, but I'd not want a bunch of "M" lenses quite yet.

Micro 4/3 seems to me to be the best bet for a mirrorless body, multiple body and lens makers means you won't get stuck with a discontinued system.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 25, 2013)

The eos-m seems like a waste of money. It's not practical if you're a professional on location. Now if you're traveling, I guess it could work somewhat. But I think if you're a photographer with income based on your photos, the eos m is just gonna take up space. Having EF lenses on it.. Haha! Ridiculous. Correct me if I'm wrong but would you trust it to take images that you would sell to your clients? I hope not. I'd rather have a 50D or even a t2i as a backup. Having something reliable and good is better than smaller/cheaper.


----------



## pedroxha1 (Aug 25, 2013)

I'm actually really tempted about doing a setup similar to one mentioned on another post: the sigma 18-35 on the EOS M. Currently I have a G1 X and an 1100d and primarily use the G1 X due to its size. I have a few lenses for the 1100d, 60mm macro, 70-300 tamron non-vc, 50 1.8, which I could use on the EOS M. However, I'm more looking at keeping the 22mm prime on it if I decide to go that route, but still having the ability to use my other lenses if I wish.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 25, 2013)

in an overall encompassing overview, the eos m isn't meant for the professional shooter. It's functions is annoying and especially with larger lenses than... Even the 22mm. You don't find it cumbersome/awkward? One of the reasons why people like FF is the size and grip feel in the hands etc. You put a nice tele lens or even a 24-70mm on a FF and it feels right. Aps-c, kinda awkward. Now on a eos m? Of course you could just use smaller lenses for it.. I don't know, just because its cheap and delivers IQ enough to match other cameras doesn't support the general usage for the serious shooter. At least for me. 

Better sensor than the 7D, okay. Still that doesn't mean much of anything. How many cameras have a better sensor than the 7D? It's the capabilities of the 7D and versatility that make it so good. Ill stop as really, you can't compare these two cameras in anyway. 

MAYBE in the future, ill buy a 4th gen eos m. They seem to offer quite a bit for the price but there too many reasons why it seems like a waste of money. The fact that you can buy an adapter and use your other canon and canon mount lenses is cool... But why is my question. If they could make a 24-70mm or even an 18-55mm pancake, then ill sell all my gear and jump for it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> One of the reasons why people like FF is the size and grip feel in the hands etc. You put a nice tele lens or even a 24-70mm on a FF and it feels right. Aps-c, kinda awkward.



Don't confuse sensor size with ergonomics. A 70-200/2.8 on the FF 6D would feel awkward to me, but on the APS-H 1DIV it's perfect, as it is on a gripped APS-C 7D. Heck, even a non-gripped 7D would provide better balance than a 6D. 



cellomaster27 said:


> I don't know, just because its cheap and delivers IQ enough to match other cameras doesn't support the general usage for the serious shooter. At least for me.



Perhaps not. But for specific usage for the 'serious shooter' it can make a lot of sense, at least to me. The EOS M gives me a pretty big sensor for a camera that fits in a small pouch on my belt, and there are times when I simply cannot take my 1D X and a few of my 14 lenses with me. But maybe I'm not a 'serious shooter'? :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2013)

This guy probably isn't a serious shooter, either. : :

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16180.0


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 26, 2013)

The EOS-M replaced the HS 230, which had a good zoom range, but IQ was was lacking especially ISO > 400. 

I like the M with the 22 f/2. I don't care for the EF-M 18-55. The IQ isn't as good. However, my wife will opt for the 18-55 because it is a zoom. Picked up the adapter for 85, and it serves as a backup to the dslr. I tried the adaptor once to make sure it worked but haven't used it since, but 85 to extend a good walk around camera to use all my other EF lenses is a good deal.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 26, 2013)

Okay, my bad. What I should say when referring to 'serious photographer' is being on the job. Yes, you can be a serious photographer at home taking pictures of family, pet, food... XD 

For one, even the front cover photo of Time magazine used a photo taken with an iPhone. understood. It was a great photo. It's just that if I was taking photos at a wedding, I would not be using the eos-m. Or a model shoot. etc.. Being paid, that is. It is not reliable like a dslr. Sure it's compact and nifty especially for what it IS. Again, until there are more improvements to a great start, I'll be putting my money towards FF bodies and EF lenses.

I appreciate your opinion neuro, especially since you have a 1Dx and a eos-m. hats off. ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> It's just that if I was taking photos at a wedding, I would not be using the eos-m. *Or a model shoot*. etc.. Being paid, that is.



Did you click on the link I posted above?


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> This guy probably isn't a serious shooter, either. : :
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16180.0



With all lighting and times setup for those shots, I just don't see any special


----------



## docsmith (Aug 26, 2013)

I do hope that canon introduces a few more EF-M lenses, and a few more bodies...just to make the line sustainable. But, I honestly don't know if I will buy anything more. I have the EOS-M, 18-55, the 22/2 and the 90 EX. The M is my go anywhere camera, either because of its size or because if it gets stolen, I am only out a few hundred dollars instead of a few thousand. Other than that, it is a back up body to my 5DIII when on serious trips. That is it. So, I really have little intention to buy more EF-M lenses and keeping up with current models. I can only see me upgrading the body if there is some significant advances. 

But Canon needs to have people who make the EOS-M their primary camera system. That is just not me. It is a back-up/secondary system for me.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > It's just that if I was taking photos at a wedding, I would not be using the eos-m. *Or a model shoot*. etc.. Being paid, that is.
> ...



Just did. Fantastic stuff! He/she did a great job with that! Nice set up they had. But it was a 'b-roll', not the main tape (makes sense). The photos are good!


----------



## brad-man (Aug 26, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > This guy probably isn't a serious shooter, either. : :
> ...



Professional photographers don't set up their shots? What's_ special_ is that the camera is very small and very affordable.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but would you trust it to take images that you would sell to your clients?



Yes.



> I hope not. I'd rather have a 50D or even a t2i as a backup.



You would rather have an inferior sensor as a backup?



> Having something reliable and good is better than smaller/cheaper.



Who told you the M was unreliable or not good?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> It's functions is annoying and especially with larger lenses than... Even the 22mm.



What functions are annoying? I can tell you right now for street photography I enjoy using the M more then a DSLR. I didn't think I would like the touch screen UI and bought the M because of the $299 deal, and reluctantly at that because of the negative reviews. Now you couldn't pry it from me. I love being able to touch select AF points, love live view exposure simulation, and I find I like the touch screen. And while I would add a dial or two and tweak the UI if I could, overall I find it to be fluid and easy to use. Oh yeah...at least with single point AF set to the AE lock button rather then the shutter, I find AF to be quick, sure, and accurate, and the overall shooting experience to be responsive.

It certainly doesn't replace a DSLR for everything. And I do think larger lenses are awkward on it. But the EF-M 18-55 is well balanced and Canon's smaller EF primes also work well.



> You don't find it cumbersome/awkward? One of the reasons why people like FF is the size and grip feel in the hands etc. You put a nice tele lens or even a 24-70mm on a FF and it feels right.



And it's heavy. For some lenses and types of photography I absolutely want a DSLR with a viewfinder and the camera braced against my face. For other types I'm thrilled with the small, light M.



> Better sensor than the 7D, okay. Still that doesn't mean much of anything. How many cameras have a better sensor than the 7D?



Out of the history of DSLRs? Not many. Like the 7D the M will pull off a 24" fine art landscape print at low/mid ISO and still produce good 8x10's and even 13x19's at ISO 3200. It's better then the 7D at high ISO, especially shooting JPEGs.



> The fact that you can buy an adapter and use your other canon and canon mount lenses is cool... But why is my question. If they could make a 24-70mm or even an 18-55mm pancake, then ill sell all my gear and jump for it.



The existing 18-55 IS is small, light, and offers very good IQ. The only reason I think I would upgrade is if Canon offered a faster or constant aperture version.

The M is a very competent camera and I'm enjoying it so much for some types of photography that I added the 18-55, a flash, and will be adding the 11-22.


----------



## Cb33 (Aug 26, 2013)

Somehow this thread is no longer relevant to the original post, but...

Would I use the M on a paid shoot? Yes, I just did. Shooting for a story in a small bi-monthly (~40,000 readers) about great spots for beer lovers. I took my regular gear and on a whim grabbed the M and 22mm as well. The bar I shot at was very welcoming but one of the bartenders I was shooting was clearly starting to get a little tense and nervous about a big camera in his face. So, I grabbed the M. I could shoot, conversation, and look the bartender in the eye at the same time. He relaxed and looked more natural. Guess which photos ran?


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 26, 2013)

At a firesale price of $299 many bought one.

What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.
I am not sure if it is pride of ownership, or ego's defending a purchase they once said they would never make.

I could see a use for this camera in my kit with the adapter if it had a flip screen. 
If canon brings a new version with one I will get it.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.
> I am not sure if it is pride of ownership, or ego's defending a purchase they once said they would never make.



It's simply that the M works pretty darn well.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 26, 2013)

I like the M for casual shooting. It's good to have an APS-C camera with an f/2.0 lens in your pocket for $299.

But it is still too slow sometimes. Focus is a little slow, and the camera itself is sluggish. For example it takes about 3 seconds before you can shoot again even when you change from AE to M mode. Getting out of menu to shoot again is also slow. There's no C1-C3, so you can't save any setup conditions. The movie mode also is not separated, so picture profile in photo mode is the same in movie, just like all other settings.

I could go on, but for me the camera is just a good point and shoot that's awkward and slow and is small enough to carry for an emergency back-up.

I hope Canon doesnt give up on it. They should produce a really compelling EOS-M II, but the first version is worth about the $299 fire sale price, and it won't replace my 5DIII on anything but late night pub crawls.

BTW ... I bought a genuine Canon EF adapter on eBay for $89, so it takes all of my other lenses, but I typically just use it with the 22mm f/2.0


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 26, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> At a firesale price of $299 many bought one.
> 
> What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.
> I am not sure if it is pride of ownership, or ego's defending a purchase they once said they would never make.
> ...



I don't think so... Why would people defend something that they have never used? M threads were (mercifully) less frequent and shorter before the fire sale, which supports the idea that it did not sell all that well at its original price. In some respects, looking at M threads that only ran for a dozen or two posts is much easier than any 70D/7D/FF vs. crop/Sony versus Canon sensor tech threads, etc. I almost bought one at 400 on Ebay, but I'm glad I waited and snagged one at 300. It was not a good value at 800 when T4i and T3is sold for less for the same IQ, but now it is.

If EOS-M 2 comes out back at 800, with similar IQ, I won't be interested. Smaller sensors need faster glass when light levels are low. I don't like its IQ at ISO 3200/6400 at 1/30th of a second, which is why I value the 22mm f/2 more than the 18-55 IS. The M is cheaper than the S100 and delivers better IQ, so it has taken over the P&S's role in the house. Until APC-S can match what FF sensors can do today, I can't imagine using a CSC as a primary camera. The reduced flange distance gives it some advantages in lens design, but any fast glass (f/1.4) will require large lenses, so body size matters less and less.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 26, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.
> ...



It works the same now as when it was released ( except for any firmware upgrades of course)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Which is an important point, since the big sale occurred very soon after the firmware update which dramatically sped up AF (one of the biggest complaints about the camera from reviewers/users). Cameras sold at sale prices seemed to mostly come with the new firmware, too.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



$299 seems to be a bigger reason for buying from the people I know who have bought it than a faster AF system.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> $299 seems to be a bigger reason for buying from the people I know who have bought it than a faster AF system.



Sure. But how many wouldn't have bought it, even for $299, without the improvement to the AF speed? I don't know the answer to that, but I can tell you it's at least one.


----------



## BL (Aug 26, 2013)

is there any point trying to defend one point or the other?

haters gonna hate lol


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 26, 2013)

BL said:


> is there any point trying to defend one point or the other?
> 
> haters gonna hate lol



The word hate might be too strong here. There is no right or wrong shooting M with much larger lens. It just WACKY looking to me ;D


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 26, 2013)

Haha! 
I apologize if I offended some eos m users. I guess it's your investment, your money, your like/dislike. It's all preference. I didn't realize how passionate some people are. :


----------



## EchoLocation (Aug 26, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> At a firesale price of $299 many bought one.
> 
> What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.
> I am not sure if it is pride of ownership, or ego's defending a purchase they once said they would never make.


this is easy to explain. my two biggest gripes about the M at launch was that it was too expensive and the AF was way too slow.
the firmware update made the AF usable(IMO) and the price drop from 800ish to 300 brought this camera in to an entirely new universe of comparisons.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 26, 2013)

My thoughts are conflicted and hypocritical.

I think that CSC's are only really worthwhile with a pancake lens, otherwise I'm as well using my fairly compact and light 600D.

Despite this, and despite being seduced by the Panasonic GF1 a few years ago, I held off, I wanted to see what Canon would do, and being a tight Scot, I didn't want to buy into another camera system.

My M is brilliant with the 22mm. I have the adaptor, but so far have only used it for a test, to see how the M got on with my EF lenses. Which was fine.

It is really handy to think that in a pinch I could mount EF lenses to my M. But I didn't buy it for that.
I love the form of it, I love how solid it feels. I love the touchscreen menus. I love the wee 22mm lens.
And the images are a stop better for noise etc than my d4 cameras.

I intend to keep it as a pocket CSC, however I can see some applications being useful, i.e. I was shooting a car review last week with a Jaguar F-Type, and I got on just about fine with my 600D and Tokina 11-16 for interior dialogue, the GoPro stuff wasn't really much cop (N.B> I have the Hero and Hero2, Hero2 is equivalent to Hero3 Silver in terms of lens, sensor etc, GoPros need EXCELLENT light to give nice footage) but I can see the EOS m getting into spaces where the 600D wouldn't. And the IQ is miles above the GoPro.

A wider pancake would be ideal. I would consider getting the EF-M 11-22 but for 2 factors:

A CSC really should only have pancakes to retain the size benefit.
I already have the stop-2 stops faster Tokina.

So there you go. Conflicted and contradictory.

We should shoot more and talk less.


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 26, 2013)

They still want $139 for the adapter? Seems a bit high considering the lack of optics, but if you love the camera, and if it is becoming your "Go To" camera which you want to use every second of the day, spring for the adapter. You'll thank yourself in the long term.

But if your bought it simply because it was a good deal but have to force yourself to use it. Forget about it. Cut your losses.

In itself, I don't see a problem using EF lenses on the M if you want to expand your focal length options. While I lack an EOS-M, I regularly use L lenses on my Fuji X-E1 (my biggest Fuji lens is 60mm). While I agree it looks a little funny (and is a little awkard) with lenses bigger than 135mm, I enjoy using it and will happily put up with some negatives, such as the weight imbalance and having to pre-aperturise your lens.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 26, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > At a firesale price of $299 many bought one.
> ...



I think it's even easier than that...

A lot of folk slated the camera who hadn't even touched it, or at best spent 2 minutes playing with it set up in out the box mode in a dim camera shop.

More folk used it and realised that set up like an adult (how many_ serious_ EOS users _surrender totally_ to auto-af point select?)

And of course the FW upgrade helped.

Bad press got folk a bargain. I bought before the firesale (which didn't help UK shooters in any case) and went in with my eyes wide open having tried different AF set ups in store.


----------



## sandymandy (Aug 26, 2013)

AS long as he delivers the quality i want the heck i care what my (wedding) photographer is using. 

TBH need more Eos-M lenses  Its just kinda silly to buy a really small EoS and then putting on these monster lenses from the big body boys...


----------



## Mellonhead (Aug 26, 2013)

I've already got a bunch of Canon lenses, so the choice was easy. The camera takes great pictures, period, plus is the cheapest APC-S sensor camera that Canon makes. Comparing size and feature-set is is an exercise in penis-envy.


----------



## DRR (Aug 26, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > At a firesale price of $299 many bought one.
> ...



Exactly. Once the firmware update was pending release I went and bought one immediately. Sold my m4/3 kit. That was pre-firesale. You firesale folks made out like bandits. 

There are better cameras, there are better mirrorless cameras, but you will not find a better camera at that price point. $300 for an APS-C body AND a f/2 prime. Doesn't exist as an SLR, or a m4/3, or a Nikon 1 - there is no comparable camera at that price.

And the griping about the adapter is ridiculous. People aren't buying the adapter in order to buy L glass for their M. They already own all that glass and want to use it with their new, tiny, body. That's what I did. I paid $85 for the adapter and my lens selection to mate with the M increased from 1 to 5. Not bad for $85.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 26, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> My thoughts are conflicted and hypocritical.
> 
> I think that CSC's are only really worthwhile with a pancake lens, otherwise I'm as well using my fairly compact and light 600D.
> 
> ...



...enjoyed reading your thoughtful post.

Via a Canadian seller, I own the 11-22 M lens...and while you are right...the Tokina wide-angle is faster than the native M wide-angle...but the 11-22 M lens (a) is relatively small; and (b) has two additional letters: IS.

The image stabilization is wonderful...

I think the 11-22 is the jewel of the M system. In essence, you get image-stabilized wide angle glass + APS sensor for, what $700.00 (with the 22 2.0 tossed in).


----------



## sdsr (Aug 26, 2013)

I bought one because I like trying different cameras (which I usually do by renting) and at the B&H firesale price, even though I don't like cameras without viewfinders, it was too good an opportunity to pass up. I figured it would serve two purposes: 1. taking unobtrusive photos in darkish places like restaurants where I wouldn't normally want to take a "proper" camera; 2. as a substitute for taking a 35mm equiv. lens with me when using another camera, thereby avoiding the need to swap lenses. For such purposes I want the lens to be as small as possible, and for any other purposes lenses bigger than Canon's smaller primes would surely be quite awkward to use given how you have to hold an M, especially since they don't have IS. 

Like more than a few people here, I was very impressed by the image quality the M is capable of via its pancake lens, especially the accuracy of its automatic white balance in tricky mis-matched indoor lighting. The problem I have with it (and this may just be my fault for not having gotten sufficiently used to it) is that for my purposes it's much slower to use than a dslr (or any other camera with a viewfinder that I've tried) - not because the autofocus is slow (it isn't) but because the process of achieving accurate focus requires much more effort and time. I tend to need to focus on things that are quite a bit smaller than the focus box, which requires using the magnification tool, which doesn't always work - on several occasions I've magnified the focus box more than ought to be enough, pressed the shutter and, well, it just wouldn't focus on the first few attempts. I have yet to use it and, while using it, not wished I was using a different camera - no matter how much I might like the results later.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 26, 2013)

I'm really happy with my M. My 6D is my primary camera and I use it whenever practical, but its nice to have a light weight camera system as a alternative. I use the EOS-M with 22/2 lens mounted as a replacement for a P&S when I don't want to carry a DSLR but still want good IQ. 

The primary advantage of the M is its size and weight, so after some initial experimentation, I don't use it much now with my EF lenses. I occasionally mount the 50 1.4 which makes a great portrait lens on the APS-C body and the size isn't too bad.

As other have said, I also view the M as a backup body to my 6D. With the EF-M adapter, its an ideal backup. So, going forward I probably won't use the M much with EF lenses, but its nice to have the option to use them if I need to.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2013)

bholliman said:


> I'm really happy with my M.
> 
> 
> Bodies: 6D, 7D, EOS-M, S100



I'm curious - since getting the EOS M, how much do you find yourself using your S100?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 26, 2013)

DRR said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



+1. With regard to mounting non native M glass on the M. Aside from all the other previously mentioned scenarios or uses users have mentioned, the question is, why would anyone not opt to pay an extra hundred bucks to mount any EF/S lens they wanted to on a kicka$$ $300 camera system they just bought into? It's a no-brainer. I'd go as far as to say even without the practical/sensible uses we have all mentioned, I would do it just for grins. If I had any mirrorless compact body where the company came along and said "hey, for a $100, you can mount any of the more than 100 lenses you want onto your $300 camera system," I would have to do it. Considering how much money I have in EF glass at this point, it would be dumb not to have the option at this price point regardless of ergonomics or how good/bad you think the M is.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 26, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> +1. With regard to mounting non native M glass on the M. Aside from all the other previously mentioned scenarios or uses users have mentioned, the question is, why would anyone not opt to pay an extra hundred bucks to mount any EF/S lens they wanted to on a kicka$$ $300 camera system they just bought into? It's a no-brainer. I'd go as far as to say even without the practical/sensible uses we have all mentioned, I would do it just for grins. If I had any mirrorless compact body where the company came along and said "hey, for a $100, you can mount any of the more than 100 lenses you want onto your $300 camera system," I would have to do it. Considering how much money I have in EF glass at this point, it would be dumb not to have the option at this price point regardless of ergonomics or how good/bad you think the M is.



Assuming that's not a rhetorical question, here's why - just speaking for myself - I would rather spend $100 on something else: in addition to an M I have a 5DIII and a 6D (and an Olympus OM-D), and if I'm taking photos at home, the M has no advantages over those two FF bodies and plenty of disadvantages. Once I leave home, if I put any lens bigger than a pancake on my M it loses its sole advantage because it's now too big to put in a pocket or small/slim bag, still has all the same disadvantages vis a vis a dslr, and still doesn't have image quality as good as the 5DIII or 6D, impressive though it is for a Canon APS-C. If I needed a very small back-up body, sure, it would be worth it; but I don't. Maybe I'm alone in thinking like this.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm really happy with my M.
> ...



My S95 usage has decreased dramatically after acquiring an M.

(...just wish the M didn't require an external flash.)

Size matters. The M, with any of the M lenses, is remarkably tiny...and with the 22mm pancake...does work in my pocket for a couple of hours while touristing.

The S series, of course, is even more pocketable...and the ELPH 300 is even smaller than the S series.

I think carefully about kit size and weight while on vacation and out-and-about with family; the M fits VERY nicely in the mix.

When the sensor science enables DSLR-quality autofocus, mirrorless, I think, will replace APS-C. That's right. I said replace.

I am terribly impressed with the M because I still think about it like a large sensor point-and-shoot. If I thought about it as if it was a DSLR, I would be disappointed. When the sensor improves enabling better autofocus, etc, I really think the sky is the limit.

I still enjoy using DSLRs...but using the M (and, for that matter, the S95) is fun!


----------



## Bruce Photography (Aug 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm really happy with my M.
> ...



I've been having my G10 riding under my seat for several years now as a camera that I could always have with me. I also usually carry a Nikon S800c for the combined camera, wi-fi, and internet. However since getting my EOS-M(s), I don't really use either camera any more because the quality of the EOS-M makes it like I'm shooting with my 60D in live view but in an expendable package. 

The way I've come to hold the EOS-M is key for me. Since I'm using it for candid shots at events, I don't hold it up but rather put the camera in the palm of my left hand with the 18-55 zoom ring where I can reach it with my thumb. That leaves my right hand for touching the focus spot and using the menu system. In a tight crowd I use the touch shutter so I simply touch the back of the camera while the camera is somewhat close to my stomach. I never hold it out in front of me like you see phone cameras being used (my open palm position close to my stomach is much more stable - sometimes as low as 1/15 is pretty good for stationery subjects). In this way I'm not being "viewed" as a photographer or even as someone taking a picture. Most of the time, I think people pass me off as "just someone looking at their pictures on their camera" opposed to someone actually taking pictures. I also use the multiple shot function to get the most stable shot.

I've enjoyed this camera and technique so much for candid's that I've purchased the 50mm 1.8 and the 40mm 2.8 pancake (I lost my 40mm some time ago - too small). My favorite lens for getting close in a crowd is the 80mm 1.8 and the EOS-M using my open left palm approach using the other left hand fingers to support longer lenses. Since it is a prime you dont' need the dexterity to move the zoom (there is none) so the fingers are used to support the adapter and longer lens.

In any case I feel much more comfortable in taking candids at outdoor events than with any other of my vertical grip monsters that I really do love but don't fit the "candid" description very well.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2013)

Etienne said:


> For example it takes about 3 seconds before you can shoot again even when you change from AE to M mode. Getting out of menu to shoot again is also slow.



Can you elaborate? I have experienced no delays after changing exposure mode or leaving a menu.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



I specifically checked the AF videos here before buying even at the $299 price.

Aside from AF, I was pleasantly surprised by the touch screen UI and do not miss a VF, two things I thought I would hate before actually using one.


----------



## Smurf1811 (Aug 26, 2013)

I love it


----------



## dcm (Aug 26, 2013)

In the past, I used an S100 / T2i combo. I've upgraded both to an M / 6D combo. I wanted a great quality P&S that could double as a small second body. I had a few reservations when I purchased based on the reviews but figured it would be better than the S100 at a minimum and anything more was a bonus. I've been pleasantly surprised. 

As a semi-serious amateur I only purchased L glass, even with the T2i, since I knew I would make the FF transition someday. I opted for the M over the SL1 since the minimum package is smaller and less conspicuous. My wife will use a P&S but won't touch a DSLR (including SL1). The S100 replaced her previous P&S. 

While I'm still learning about the M, it gives me better quality and more flexibility to mount any L lens in the arsenal. At a recent church event I carried the M/22 and 6D/70-200f4LIS to optimize the quality of the people shots with the 6D while still being able to shoot wide with the M. While hiking I carried the M/adapter/1.4xTC/70-200 and 6D/17-40 to maximize the scenery shots with the 6D while still being able to reach a bit farther with the extra 1.6x on the M. Between the neck strap on the M and IS on the lens I found I can easily handhold the combination with my left hand while operating the controls with my right. It gives me a nice, small package that isn't much larger than the lens/TC combo by itself - and I don't have to swap lenses on the 6D while on the trail. 

While shooting the moon (literally) on a tripod, I found the M touchsreen a joy to use and it will even autofocus at f8 on the 2xTC/70-200 combo which the 6D does not (yet - still waiting for the rumored firmware upgrade). The M/22 did as well focusing in low light as my 6D/35L on a twilight/moonlight hike in a national park. I'm still experimenting with other L glass on the M, but the results with the 8-15L, 35L, and 100L are better than the T2i. I don't think I'll be mounting the 17-40L since its covered by the EF-M 18-55 and I haven't found a situation that called for the 24-105L yet. I just wish it supported WiFi and the Camera Remote app like the 6D, but I can live without it for the price I paid.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm really happy with my M.
> ...



Almost never! I plan to give it to my 14-year-old son.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 26, 2013)

@Smurf1811 - I have been loving using all my TSEs on the M also. Went out the other day with my son on a mini expedition and had the 45 on a 5d3 and the 90 with 2x tc on the M (288mm tse for all intents and purposes). Loved that I was able make that abomination of a combo possible by only having to spend 400 bucks for a very capable, feature-rich APS-C body.

To rebut to a few other comments on people defending the M now. As others have mentioned, most of us either read a lot of bad things about it when it was first released and/or the price was way too high for what it is. At 299 + new firmware (+magic lantern for those that have done it), it puts the M in a completely different class and a completely different light. Even after initially clicking submit on my order through BH, I had plenty of reservations and doubts. But once I got my hands on it and used it for a week, I was sold. I was pleasantly surprised on multiple levels at its performance and truly believe now that it is the most bang for my buck since I started this hobby.

Below is the first thing I did when the M arrived a few weeks ago. Why? Because it cost me less than my TC alone (and simply because I can).


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 27, 2013)

This will look great on M - because I can :

I'll have the lens stored in backpack and M in my jean pocket : : :


----------



## Click (Aug 27, 2013)

^^^ Ha Ha Ha ;D


----------



## DRR (Aug 27, 2013)

sdsr said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > +1. With regard to mounting non native M glass on the M. Aside from all the other previously mentioned scenarios or uses users have mentioned, the question is, why would anyone not opt to pay an extra hundred bucks to mount any EF/S lens they wanted to on a kicka$$ $300 camera system they just bought into? It's a no-brainer. I'd go as far as to say even without the practical/sensible uses we have all mentioned, I would do it just for grins. If I had any mirrorless compact body where the company came along and said "hey, for a $100, you can mount any of the more than 100 lenses you want onto your $300 camera system," I would have to do it. Considering how much money I have in EF glass at this point, it would be dumb not to have the option at this price point regardless of ergonomics or how good/bad you think the M is.
> ...



Then I must ask - why did you buy an M in the first place? Another shiny toy?

The EOS M plus pancake is not really much smaller than your OM-D with a pancake:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#351.349,289.94,ha,t

If you're at home and have choice of any lens and body, you'd pick a FF.

If you wanted a pocketable camera, why not buy a S110 for smallest size, a G15 for versatility/manual controls, or a Sony RX1 if you want small full frame.

Why buy an EOS M in the first place? Why did you buy a mirrorless camera that's no smaller than your current mirrorless camera, no better quality than your FF bodies.

I welcome your difference in opinion, I just fail to see why the M was a better choice to you than the alternatives, if in fact you have no use for the adapter and the ability to mount all your existing glass to it.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 27, 2013)

DRR said:


> If you wanted a pocketable camera, why not buy a S110 for smallest size, a G15 for versatility/manual controls, or a Sony RX1 if you want small full frame.



I own a S100 and no longer use it because the IQ of the EOS-M is much better and its nearly as small and portable. I can live with the M's slightly larger size to gain the advantage of image quality. Even though the G-series have more manual controls, I have come to really like the M's touchscreen interface and prefer it to the G's. The RX1 and RX100's are great camera's from what I've read, but personally I really don't see a need for one. I'm happy with my current options of my 6D, 7D and EOS-M.

The EOS-M can also backup my DSLR's by accepting my EF lenses with the adapter, something the G15 and RX1 cannot do.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 27, 2013)

@dylan - I already stated all the main reasons why it made sense for me in the other thread in detail. If for nothing else, it is as good iq wise as any canon crop body currently and was the cheapest way to buy back into a 1.6x. This gave me a dirt cheap way to access a completely different dimension with all my glass. For instance, I just picked up the 35/2 IS about a month before I got the M. That gives me a relatively fast 56mm with IS. Now apply that same logic to a laundry list of L, Zeiss, and legacy glass. I also now have the ability to mount two zooms, two tse, two other primes etc etc simultaneously. And when I don't want to do that, I can still walk around with the pancake mounted as I do most of the time with it anyway. Again, options. Simply because I can (and it works). Would it have been preferable for me to have gone out and gotten a t5i, 60D, or 7D at 2 to 4 times the price just to accomplish for my purposes the exact same thing as the M?

Btw, for anyone who cares. Magic lantern rocks on the M. Magic zoom, focus peaking, and raw video alone make this thing rock more than anything else I can think of in the $300 class. I actually prefer using the M with all my legacy glass.


----------



## RGF (Aug 27, 2013)

I would always match glass to sensor. M sensor is not the best but it is respectable. Why degrade it with cheap glass? If I had the correct focal length, I would opt for the L provided weight was not an issue.


----------



## totovo (Aug 27, 2013)

Dylan777 said:



> Would you hire a photographer shooting with M + adapter + EF/S lens for your wedding?
> 
> Failing to see the fundamental of M could end up in a long discussion



I'd hire a photographer who could deliver good results, and wouldn't worry about what equipment they use to do it.

Put it another way: would you hire a photographer who didn't have proper contingency plans? My big Canon is a 5D mark II and if it were to fail at an event, the M would still work with all my lenses and flashes. My previous backup was a 30D, and that's all it was good for. The M is great as an everyday carry camera (it's always in my bag) and for traveling. I'd be totally comfortable using it as a backup/second body.


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 27, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Would you hire a photographer shooting with M + adapter + EF/S lens for your wedding?
> 
> Failing to see the fundamental of M could end up in a long discussion



An M shooting wedding photographer wouldn't automatically inspire me with confidence. It is generally accepted that the FF DSLR is the standard for wedding photography and is what many people would expect. Turning up with an M would certainly raise eyebrows. I think if you intend using equipment that is perceived to be less professional, you'd want to be very good at what you do.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 27, 2013)

Hillsilly said:


> An M shooting wedding photographer wouldn't automatically inspire me with confidence. * It is generally accepted that the FF DSLR is the standard for wedding photography* and is what many people would expect. Turning up with an M would certainly raise eyebrows. I think if you intend using equipment that is perceived to be less professional, you'd want to be very good at what you do.



By whom?

Anything less than a Hasselblad and they are wasting my time.

Seriously, most folk away from Canon Rumors will be sold on the portfolio, not on an anonymous looking black box that looks the same as any other anonymous black box. They won't care if it's full frame or not, only that the photographer can work it, and match the standard of their portfolio for their special day.

An m might be stretching it, but as a back up camera... perhaps good insurance.

Disclosure: I don't do wedding photography and never intend to. A lot of respect for my friends who do. 
For my wedding I want a few straight portraits. The happy couple. The families. Everybody, outside venue. No cakes. No signings. No quirky angles. No coy brides peeking out from behind trees or crap like that. Straight group and single portraits, to a high technical and aesthetic standard. Should take 10 minutes. Let us get on with our day. And no video (and I am a video guy) The real fun and the best wedding photographs are taken by the guests. At 10pm. When everybody is relaxed and drunk. The nice portraits will be on the wall. It'll be the friends snaps that help us relive our day. I don't care if these are on iphones, ixus or full frame. So long as they are salacious, scandalous and maybe even a bit sexy.

To that end the main photographer can use whatever they deem fit. It's a simple brief from me, and a nice wedge.

If they screw it up I'll have their legs broken for them. From their point of view, an M might be less painful shoved up their backside than a 1DX. I'll trust them to choose the tool for the job. As far as photography goes, I'm a keen amateur. I'm not so arrogant to tell them how to do their job, beyond what I expect the end result to be.

I work along side professional photographers on a very regular basis, friends from college and my days in camera retail have gone on to become occassional photographers. I've never ever once heard that they must use full frame. In fact one of the most talented (by my eye) would use nothing else other than a Fuji S3 or s5 Pro, as these were held to have the best skintone reproduction.

The curse of full frame nonsense talk strikes again.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 27, 2013)

totovo said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Would you hire a photographer shooting with M + adapter + EF/S lens for your wedding?
> ...



I thought we are talking about gear?

I wouldn't trust any photographer, unless I see their works and gear. I WILL NOT hire a photographer shooting with M in my wedding(i hope my wife and kids not reading thread)

Don't expect everyone on dance floor to stop, so you can get focus. About the groom and bride walking the aisle? About bride throwing bouquet? You think the M focus is fast enough for those moments?

I expect pro shooter at least in FF + L lenses, that's why they get pay big bucks. 
Just don't show up at wedding with 3ti or M + kit lenses and charge less, just to earn business. How often you see that?

Let be *realistic * here. The M is fun to carry around due to small size. Mount EF, EF-S, or L would take away "*The Fundamental/Characteristics of this Camera*". 

*THIS IS WHAT CANON NEEDS TO RELEASE MORE FOR M & M2*


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 27, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> totovo said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



What about a 1DIV? Would you prefer a 1DIV to a 5DC? Or even a 5D2? What about a 6D? Or would you prefer the 1DIV?

I would relax and enjoy my wedding day. Your paying the professional, let him/her worry about his/her tools.
What do you want? Pics as per the portfolio that sold you? Or a schlong hanging competition?

If I booked a photographer, explained my requirements, and paid them a wedge and the pics weren't what I'd been led to expect, I would kneecap him. He could keep the wedge, and he could show them to anybody who asked why he was taking photos from crutches. I don't care so much about the pictures, just about folk thinking they can take a rise. It wouldn't happen though because they would be well vetted.

But I wouldn't worry about him on my wedding day. One of the very least important things on the day. In fact I would regard even the 10 minute slot they had for pics between the service and meal an inconvenience.

Folk have lost sight of what weddings are all about. It's not about brinksmanship, or out doing your pals expensive flatpack wedding. its about making a vow, dressing up, having a drink and a laugh. We have no gift list (we are self sufficient financially and have cohabited for 5 years, anything we need we've got already) leave your weans at the creche for the service thanks. We don't usually listen to classical music, so we won't have any thanks. Lets have some pulp instead. Some Kaiser Cheifs. I regard Kilts as an english invention, a bastardisation of Sir Walter Scotts best intentions, so I won't be wearing one, but I appreciate that my friends wear them as if they mean something (they don't), have spent a lot of money on them, and well they do look quite smart, so wear them if you like.

I like 70's cars, so a Granda Coupe, or Citroen DS would be great.

And photos. Yawn. If you must. I know the old folks like to have them. 10 minutes slot. Bang bang bang. See you in two weeks with the proofs.

Wedding photographers have to come up with all this wacky stuff to stand out. It's all a big con, and it has the potential to ruin your day. A good wedding photographer will get it right, and you'll pay for the privilege. I can drive my car, I don't tell the bus driver how to do his job or what bus to use.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 27, 2013)

"Your paying the professional, let him/her worry about his/her tools.
What do you want? Pics as per the portfolio that sold you? Or a schlong hanging competition?" ==> I want high quality photos, because I don't plan to have another wedding . Missing shots due to improper gear is happening on TV, everydays  


"Folk have lost sight of what weddings are all about. It's not about brinksmanship, or out doing your pals expensive flatpack wedding. its about making a vow, dressing up, having a drink and a laugh. We have no gift list (we are self sufficient financially and have cohabited for 5 years, anything we need we've got already) leave your weans at the creche for the service thanks. We don't usually listen to classical music, so we won't have any thanks. Lets have some pulp instead. Some Kaiser Cheifs. I regard Kilts as an english invention, a bastardisation of Sir Walter Scotts best intentions, so I won't be wearing one, but I appreciate that my friends wear them as if they mean something (they don't), have spent a lot of money on them, and well they do look quite smart, so wear them if you like." ==> I'm in the late 30. I found it's hard to find "today woman" who would enjoy this type of wedding Paul


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 27, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I want high quality photos, because I don't plan to have another wedding . Missing shots due to improper gear is happening on TV, everydays



Go by the portfolio. Do a google for horror stories. I'm lucky, i'm friendly with a few working photographers who I could ask and wouldn't have to think twice about a) their interpretation of my instruction or b) the quality of their work.


> I'm in the late 30. I found it's hard to find "today woman" who would enjoy this type of wedding Paul



I'm doubly lucky. The 'forever woman' I've found is on the same page as me as far as weddings go. She'll have her personal touches, and it will be our day. Not our parents, not our friends and certainly not the photographers. But we'll share it. And it'll will be good fun. Bingo instead of speeches. Karaoke instead of a dj. 'Take another little piece of my heart' for the first dance. 'Walk like a panther' as the second. 

We've been to enough horrible weddings that nobody has enjoyed, not least the couple, and my girlfriend has witnessed enough bridezillas for us to say, 'you know what?, phurk that!, let's do what *WE* want'.


----------



## Jim O (Aug 27, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm in the late 30. I found it's hard to find "today woman" who would enjoy this type of wedding Paul


Maybe if it's her third or fourth...

I've been married twice (second time was 20 years ago - we're still together) and neither would have gone along with that.

The most enjoyable recent wedding I was at was a "backyard" affair that was casual. My "gift" to the bride and groom was a 16x20 portrait taken that day that I had professionally framed. Their photographer shot with some gear from a company that begins with the letter "N".

As for an EOS M as a wedding tool. It isn't. Plain and simple. Focus is too slow. What lens you have on it is irrelevant. You're going to miss some key candids. Even if the bride and groom are ok with what's presented to them, you, as a professional, will know that you could have done better.

I agree with whoever above said that the EOS M is a (physically) *lightweight* camera and putting a big lens on it makes little sense unless you have no choice. Just my $0.02.


----------



## Jim O (Aug 27, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I'm doubly lucky. The 'forever woman' I've found is on the same page as me as far as weddings go. She'll have her personal touches, and it will be our day. Not our parents, not our friends and certainly not the photographers. But we'll share it. And it'll will be good fun. Bingo instead of speeches. Karaoke instead of a dj. 'Take another little piece of my heart' for the first dance. 'Walk like a panther' as the second.
> 
> We've been to enough horrible weddings that nobody has enjoyed, not least the couple, and my girlfriend has witnessed enough bridezillas for us to say, 'you know what?, phurk that!, let's do what *WE* want'.



You are a lucky man! Of course come back in 20 years and tell us how you feel about that.  I had little feeling one way or another. To me it was a formality that could just as well be handled at city hall followed by a party at our home, perhaps even after the "honeymoon". However, *I wanted to give my bride what she wanted*, whatever that was (both times). Luckily I had fun, both times and wouldn't do anything differently if I were to do it all over.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 27, 2013)

If I were a wedding photographer I probably wouldn't use an M. Partly because of the work of Erving Goffman, mainly because there are better options, in terms of ergonomics, speed of setting changes, balance in the hand etc.

If my main camera broke and all I had was the m in my bag, I'd make it work. I would know I could do this becuase I would have practiced practiced and practiced.

As a groom I might have the M in my pocket. And get some nice stuff along the way of the day.

However, I would absolutely absolutely absolutely want to see a photographers portfolio, so I could see if their aesthetic and my vision will work together.

If I like the portfolio, they can use whatever camera they shot that on for my wedding. It probably won't be an M. But if it is, and if they've demonstrated that they have mastered it (I would know by their portfolio) then fine, let them use it or whatever else.

From what I've read folk aren't particularly saying that wedding photographers should use an M (although, bizarrely some are saying they must use full frame?) just that the wedding photographer should be trusted to pick what gear works for them. If you don't trust your working experienced photographer then why the hell did you book them?

In 20 years time you might look back and think 'oh yes, that was a 1DX or was it a 5D3'. And if you do, I can guarantee your wife will have left you once she found out what an anal bore you were.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 27, 2013)

The subject on this thread seems to have changed, but I recently got the EF adapter for the M and tried some of my kit. First, there is not problem with image quality. I have nice lenses, and they produce great pictures on either my FF bodies or the M. The issue is balance.

Obvious the 40mm pancake feels very natural on the M. My EF 85mm f/1.8 feels fine. Starting at about the weight of the 135L, however, the tipping point is reached and the combo begins to feel awkward. It would work in a pinch as a back-up, but I would prefer to use the heavier lenses in their native environment. I find the 6D a bit too light when using a 70-200mm f/2.8 or heavier lens for balance sake, so those type of lenses on an M is, to me, nothing but a novelty. Even my 70-300L is ridiculous, although it produces very nice pics on the platform. I've attached a quick shot + 100% crop. Not a combo that I would use, but not because of IQ.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 27, 2013)

Then I must ask - why did you buy an M in the first place? Another shiny toy?

The EOS M plus pancake is not really much smaller than your OM-D with a pancake:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#351.349,289.94,ha,t

If you're at home and have choice of any lens and body, you'd pick a FF.

If you wanted a pocketable camera, why not buy a S110 for smallest size, a G15 for versatility/manual controls, or a Sony RX1 if you want small full frame.

Why buy an EOS M in the first place? Why did you buy a mirrorless camera that's no smaller than your current mirrorless camera, no better quality than your FF bodies.

I welcome your difference in opinion, I just fail to see why the M was a better choice to you than the alternatives, if in fact you have no use for the adapter and the ability to mount all your existing glass to it.
[/quote]

As I mentioned earlier, I bought one out of curiosity, curiosity that was easy to satisfy at B&H's firesale price. I hoped it would be a pocketable inconspicuous camera to use in darkish places like restaurants and, when I'm out with another camera, an alternative to swapping on a 35mm lens. The sensor in an S110, G15 or even RX100 isn't as good as the sensor in the M, and while an RX1 would be nice, I'm not spending that much and ending up with no choice in focal length. The OM-D is bigger and not as pocketable, the 35mm equiv. Olympus lens I have isn't a pancake, the pancake I own is too wide for a general-purpose lens, and buying another pancake lens would have cost more than the M + 22mm. 

As I've noted before, the M is capable of excellent image quality and it serves the purposes I bought it for quite well. But for me, at least, it's nowhere near as easy or pleasant to use as a DSLR or the OM-D, so I'm not inclined to want to expand its use and I'm not sure I'll end up keeping it.

But leaving all that aside, what's wrong with shiny toys? (Aside from its monitor, the M isn't shiny, by the way.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Don't expect everyone on dance floor to stop, so you can get focus. About the groom and bride walking the aisle? About bride throwing bouquet? You think the M focus is fast enough for those moments?



You're so right. I mean, before autofocus cameras, there were no wedding photographers, right? Forget brides slowly walking down the aisle, there was no sports photography before fast AF either, was there? Back in the 50s and 60s, _Sports Illustrated_ was all words and no pictures, 'eh?

The pair of photogs who shot my wedding had no trouble getting crisp focus of those moments using Mamiya RZ67's. How fast is the autofocus on those? 

:

Once upon a time, I managed to get moving atheletes in focus with a Minolta X-700. Now, if you mean _you_ wouldn't shoot a wedding with an EOS M because _you_ need fast AF achieve good focus, that's sounds like a personal problem, to me. :-X


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't expect everyone on dance floor to stop, so you can get focus. About the groom and bride walking the aisle? About bride throwing bouquet? You think the M focus is fast enough for those moments?
> ...



Absolutely!

The crappy fixed 1/60th synch of the x-700 might preclude any ambient / flash mix for your dancefloor shots though.
I preferred the slow shutter synch of my x-500. Easier manual exposure too.

I do agree that the M doesn't make life quite as easy enough for some, shich to my mind is its sole failing: it's intended market probably need as much help without changing settings.

Out the box fw1 af was grim. Anybody who had used a big Eos in anything other than green square mode has no excuse for not bring able to set up an m to take decent social photography.

Out the box af with fw2 is good, very good if you restrict the af selection points to the centre grid of squares (press the bin during shooting.


----------



## Jim O (Aug 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Now, if you mean _you_ wouldn't shoot a wedding with an EOS M because _you_ need fast AF achieve good focus, that's sounds like a personal problem, to me. :-X



Apples and oranges. 

I shot weddings and events using 645 manual focus back in the late '80's into the late '90's. I did "sports" with an AE-1 Program and a motor drive. Back then we also had *bright* optical viewfinders and the ability to readily detect if the subject was in focus, essentially using phase detection. Those advantages are not present in digital SLR's, especially not those with small sensors.

The M has no optical viewfinder. If you use an STM lens there is also a disconnect when manually focusing, at least with the 40 2.8 which I have used. I imagine it's easy to overshoot, though honestly I haven't tried it much with moving subjects. I bet that I can focus faster, much faster, with a film camera/lens combination designed for manual focus than I could with an LCD only camera and just about any EF lens on manual. I doubt there would be a competition.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 27, 2013)

I've always thought about fitting a katzeyes to my 7D.
Miss the split / micro/prism rign finder screens. Made prefocusing dead easy!


----------



## comsense (Aug 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't expect everyone on dance floor to stop, so you can get focus. About the groom and bride walking the aisle? About bride throwing bouquet? You think the M focus is fast enough for those moments?
> ...


Not relevant. I am surprised that you are trying to defend using EOS M to shoot wedding . Yes it can get some great to decent photos, but you will surely miss many. As Jim O pointed out the manual focus cameras of past had nice workarounds. EOS M is probably one of the worst camera I have used to capture the moment instantly (and its not only the AF, dead time between the shots has a good part to play too).

Regardless, this discussion seems to be pointless:

Can EOS M be used to shoot weddings: Yes 
Can you get some great wedding photos: Yes
(Imagine a crazy scenario with 10 assistants carrying M toting nice L lens; randomly you would get some great keeper for every moment)
Are there better options than using M (provided same/similar glass): Almost everything else (except P&S and iphone)


Lets move on to something more meaningful....


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The pair of photogs who shot my wedding had no trouble getting crisp focus of those moments using Mamiya RZ67's. How fast is the autofocus on those?
> 
> :
> 
> Once upon a time, I managed to get moving atheletes in focus with a Minolta X-700. Now, if you mean _you_ wouldn't shoot a wedding with an EOS M because _you_ need fast AF achieve good focus, that's sounds like a personal problem, to me. :-X



Once upon a time, I got an occasional good pic with my Argus C-4. ;D

But, given the limitations of the "manual focus" on the M lenses, I can see the point. However, with the adapter and a manual focus lens.......


----------



## Jim O (Aug 27, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You missed my point. I compared manual focus to manual focus, not manual focus to autofocus. You think the M has fast enough autofocus and I do not. I think its autofocus system is s-l-o-w. We can argue about it or agree to disagree.




paul13walnut5 said:


> I've always thought about fitting a katzeyes to my 7D.
> Miss the split / micro/prism rign finder screens. Made prefocusing dead easy!



Exactly. That's how we got good shots back in the day when things were moving. That and using a lot of film.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't expect everyone on dance floor to stop, so you can get focus. About the groom and bride walking the aisle? About bride throwing bouquet? You think the M focus is fast enough for those moments?
> ...



That's good point Neuro. 
I wonder how many of bad pictures were in the trash, before they can show few good photos?
Would you like to take that risk in your wedding? 

I wonder :... why many of us upgraded from 5D II to 5D III or 1D X? better AF system? better ISO? 

I can't wait to see your 600mm + M in wildlife shooting. Please no turtle or snail ;D


----------



## tcmatthews (Aug 28, 2013)

Currently I am using my EOS M with native lens. But will likely use more EF lens when Magic Lantern is stable with the new firmware. That will add focus peeking (although it is still better on a Nex) then manual focus will be easier for my FD lenses. I also think that it has major potential as a compact video camera. 

A big issue with the M and Manual focus is that there is no way to turn off Auto focus. I ran into a problem the other day were it would not focus where I wanted it to zoomed in all the way. I had to half press the shutter and focus manual. M lens do not have auto-manual switch. It was a serious pain while sticking the M into a plant at a odd angle. It could really use a articulating screen. I will likely be looking into the menu again to see if there is an option to turn on manual focus when the shutter button is not depressed. 

It you want manual focus in modern times for legacy lens buy a focus screen or a NEX. A NEX 6 focus peeking is fantastic with FD lens. As an aside all native NEX lens are focus by wire and manual adjustments are needed with any lens set below 2.8. Sony chose to sacrifice accuracy for speed. There are no real difficulties focusing the SEL50 1.8 manually. I prefer old manual lens but there is nothing that prevents a good manual focus with focus by wire if it is properly engineered for manual focus. 

The true is most modern lens are configure for auto-focus.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 28, 2013)

I have to be on the side of those that say they would question or not trust a wedding photog that shows up with an M. (or a T?i for that matter). My first question for them would be did they get their education from MWAC attack. All it takes to be a "Pro wedding photographer" is they convince someone to pay them one time. 

But still speaking of the AF speed of the M. It was apparently fast enough at $299 that many bought in to the system.

A question, the specs on Canon's website say that AI Servo Mode will not work on EF or EF-S lenses, so I am assuming that face detect+tracking would not work either with continuous shooting?
Of course with a 6 frame burst and 4+fps rate I am sure with an M on my supertele I could get keepers of birds in flight in manual focus.


----------



## drjlo (Aug 28, 2013)

EOSD4651 by drjlo1, on Flickr

Finally got around to trying my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 on EOS-M, and as great as Tokina is, I must say the EF-M 18-55mm produces very nice results when comparing Tokina's 16 mm vs Canon's 18 mm. Shot at say f/3.5, other than the mild difference in focal length, it would be difficult for me to tell the two apart as far as sharpness and IQ.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 28, 2013)

comsense said:


> Not relevant. I am surprised that you are trying to defend using EOS M to shoot wedding . Yes it can get some great to decent photos, but you will surely miss many. As Jim O pointed out the manual focus cameras of past had nice workarounds. EOS M is probably one of the worst camera I have used to capture the moment instantly (and its not only the AF, dead time between the shots has a good part to play too).
> 
> Regardless, this discussion seems to be pointless:
> 
> ...



Quite. If you have to relearn obsolete techniques to use a new camera, there's something wrong (especially when that new camera isn't designed for obsolete techniques either; that "dead time" you refer to is maddening). 

The point is a fairly simple one, I would have thought. Everyone who buys an adapter so they can use the EF/EF-S lenses they already own probably owns a Canon DSLR; and that DSLR works better and is easier to use than an M and, unless it's an older model with a noticeably inferior sensor/processor combination, makes better images too. So unless, like Neuro, you simply want to use the M as an emergency back-up, buying an adapter seems far from being a "no-brainer" to me.


----------



## BL (Aug 28, 2013)

tcmatthews said:


> A big issue with the M and Manual focus is that there is no way to turn off Auto focus. I ran into a problem the other day were it would not focus where I wanted it to zoomed in all the way. I had to half press the shutter and focus manual. M lens do not have auto-manual switch. It was a serious pain while sticking the M into a plant at a odd angle. It could really use a articulating screen. I will likely be looking into the menu again to see if there is an option to turn on manual focus when the shutter button is not depressed.



i shoot my M in manual focus only, for both native M-mount and EF lenses, but have it set to back button AF using the * button.

there's a custom function for AF that can be set to make this happen. i believe it is option #2 once you find it. dig around in the custom functions and you'll find it.


----------



## bobw (Aug 28, 2013)

sdsr said:


> The point is a fairly simple one, I would have thought. Everyone who buys an adapter so they can use the EF/EF-S lenses they already own probably owns a Canon DSLR; and that DSLR works better and is easier to use than an M and, unless it's an older model with a noticeably inferior sensor/processor combination, makes better images too. So unless, like Neuro, you simply want to use the M as an emergency back-up, buying an adapter seems far from being a "no-brainer" to me.



I would say it depends on what you are using the camera for. Having hiked for miles with a heavy camera bag, I can see advantages to lightening the load by a few pounds. I would see the lens adapter as a temporary fix until more M specific lenses are available.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 28, 2013)

tcmatthews said:


> A big issue with the M and Manual focus is that there is no way to turn off Auto focus. I ran into a problem the other day were it would not focus where I wanted it to zoomed in all the way. I had to half press the shutter and focus manual. M lens do not have auto-manual switch.



Use the C.Fn. that lets you move AF off the shutter button and onto the AE Lock button. At first I was hesitant to do this because I didn't like the button location for AF, but you get used to it. I generally hate AF on the shutter button and change that on every camera that I can. I just wish on the M that I could have put it on the movie record button, which does nothing in stills mode. It's in the perfect spot.

That said...you are correct that there should be an auto/manual switch. I assume Canon would want or have to put this in the on screen controls, which is fine. I can actually work pretty quickly with the screen, I just wish some of the options didn't require confirmation.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 28, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> I have to be on the side of those that say they would question or not trust a wedding photog that shows up with an M. (or a T?i for that matter).



If their portfolio was good I wouldn't blink. I quite frankly would rather have Canon APS-C 18 MP files then 645 scans, and how many wedding photographers back in the day shot 35mm?

I would pause over a crummy lens, but not any modern body with a 4/3 or larger sensor.

Maybe it's the way I use the M (single point AF; AF on AE lock button; often touching to place the point over max contrast) but I find AF speed to be decent and sure except for tracking quickly moving objects, which isn't much of an issue at a wedding.

Personally I wouldn't use the M as a primary camera at a wedding. But if I somehow wound up shooting one and the M was the only working camera, I wouldn't panic.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Sep 1, 2013)

Kids finally down. Thought I'd use my minute of peace to share my manual focusing setup in this inappropriately large improper setup (at least as deemed by some in this thread).

In case anyone is curious, manual focus is made even more awesome when you have the touch shutter actuation on in manual focus mode as touching any part of the screen will trigger the shot (helps with the ergonomics for me in most instances).


----------



## BL (Sep 1, 2013)

god i love magic lantern... i cannot wait for it to support 2.0.2


----------



## mountain_drew (Sep 1, 2013)

BL said:


> god i love magic lantern... i cannot wait for it to support 2.0.2


It does.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Sep 1, 2013)

It most definitely does. 

And btw, not that it was ever the point. But if I had to choose between someone who had an amazingly unique portfolio and showed up with an M with a bunch of capable glass vs someone who had a portfolio that looked like the work of every other wedding photog, I would choose the former.

I want images that move me. Not everyone necessarily wants your run of the mill work from a guy/gal that has a 5d2/3, a 24-70, and 70-200 and strives to have images on par with the rest of the market. I don't consider someone that shoots all of the same scenes, produces similar images to a thousand others I have seen to be desirable. Just because you have a full frame body with a couple of the same lenses everyone else has, run your images through Alien Skin Exposure, Nik Color Efex, or VSCO Film via lightroom, oversaturate, soften, throw in a few b&w doesn't make you a desirable photog for everyone's wedding. Simply put, that doesn't make you anymore credible of a photog than the next guy with lesser/more gear.

Oh, I also forgot about the ever so important blog afterwards where you talk about how amazing the couple was and how beautiful the wedding turned out. Gag me with a spoon. I think I'll go with whomever can make me some awesome images.

Regardless, I don't think my point was ever to say that the M was suitable for everyone's needs in every situation over any other gear. All I wanted to convey was that the M is very capable, fits many needs for many people and provides a value the likes which I have previously not seen in photography. Making no claim that it is perfect or fitting for all.


----------



## markr041 (Sep 1, 2013)

I use the EOS M for video, for which quiet lenses and IS are essential. The 22mm is not useful (no IS) and the kit zoom is too limited in range and F, so I need to go beyond M lenses. I have found the M and the EF-S 18-135mm IS STM lens to be ideal for good light. And the M and the EF 35mm f2.0 IS great for low light. Both are obviously bigger than the kit zoom, but the combo with either still fits in a small bag and so is ideal for travel. Even the SL1 and these lenses together are just too bulky.

Here is a recent video shot with the 18-135mm lens:

https://vimeo.com/73551007

And here is one using the 35mm, showing the M's video capability in dim light:

https://vimeo.com/73061460


----------



## fotorex (Sep 2, 2013)

I like the possibility to use especially my EF300mm f/4 on the M. Since I bought my 5D2 I´m missing the reach of this lens I was used to on a crop Camera. Now that I got the EF-M Adapter as well, I´m finally able to have the reach again.
Also my 60mm EF-S Macro Lens will be a good partner on the M.
As long as there is no 55-150mm STM Lens or something similar available for the M, I can use my Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 lens instead. So my crop glass comes to its 2nd live.

Just a funny picture to see the combination of a white lens on the black adapter on a red M. It´s just like having a second red line on the back end of the lens ;D











So, I really appreciate the possibility to combine the M with EF, EF-S and L Lenses

Frank


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 2, 2013)

OK Dylan 777

The pic you posted is just not right!

Now I will have PTSD, and every time I see him in a movie I will have this pic in my mind.

sek



Dylan777 said:


> BL said:
> 
> 
> > is there any point trying to defend one point or the other?
> ...


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 2, 2013)

Newegg has them on sale for $309.00.

Canon EOS M (6609B074) Black 18 MP 3.0" 1040K LCD Compact Mirrorless System Camera with EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Kit

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1K50YU6524


----------



## Etienne (Sep 2, 2013)

markr041 said:


> I use the EOS M for video, for which quiet lenses and IS are essential. The 22mm is not useful (no IS) and the kit zoom is too limited in range and F, so I need to go beyond M lenses. I have found the M and the EF-S 18-135mm IS STM lens to be ideal for good light. And the M and the EF 35mm f2.0 IS great for low light. Both are obviously bigger than the kit zoom, but the combo with either still fits in a small bag and so is ideal for travel. Even the SL1 and these lenses together are just too bulky.
> 
> Here is a recent video shot with the 18-135mm lens:
> 
> ...



I like the M but above ISO 800 it is not even good enough for family videos. I see that you also tested it below ISO 800 in the "dark". I had hoped for at least usable ISO1600 for video, but no go.

I have used the 28 2.8 IS with adapter on the M, and it works really well, makes me want to get the 24 IS and the 35 IS f/2. I love the little primes on the M!

Unfortunately I still need the 5DIII for low light. The M is just not good enough there.

BTW ... you can shoot it at 360 degree shutter angle (= 1/30 for 30p vid), and go even lower light levels. Same on the 5DIII, so in the end I still find the 5DIII gives more than 3 stops of low light advantage, maybe even 4 stops (it is still pretty good past ISO6400). I had hoped this difference would be no more than 2 stops, but not on this generation of sensor.


----------



## bholliman (Sep 2, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> Newegg has them on sale for $309.00.
> 
> Canon EOS M (6609B074) Black 18 MP 3.0" 1040K LCD Compact Mirrorless System Camera with EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Kit
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1K50YU6524



$309 is a great price for the M+18-55! Since I purchased a kit with the 22/2 prime I'm temped to buy one of these to get the EF-M 18-55 cheap. I can then sell the second body.


----------



## bobw (Sep 3, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> Newegg has them on sale for $309.00.
> 
> Canon EOS M (6609B074) Black 18 MP 3.0" 1040K LCD Compact Mirrorless System Camera with EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Kit
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1K50YU6524



Just be aware that this isn't actually shipping from Newegg. Not saying it's a problem, just understand who you are actually ordering from.


----------



## dude (Sep 18, 2013)

I have the adapter and used my 24-70 2.8 on my M on my last vacation. The M is great at bumping around during the day with the 22 on. It makes for a good backup during the day. At night, well, it just doesn't cut the mustard even with an L lens on it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 18, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> At a firesale price of $299 many bought one.
> 
> What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.
> I am not sure if it is pride of ownership, or ego's defending a purchase they once said they would never make.


 
Its only human to defend a decision you made, so there is some of that there. However, some serious photographers have found they like it.

Personally, I think Canon was trying to "BUY" a customer base for the camera. It may very well have been a really smart decision, since so many people are now quite happy with it.

I think I'd consider buying one with the dual pixel sensor and fast AF but I also want the ability to tether one to my pc for in studio use. Wi-Fi, GPS, and tilting touch screen of course


----------



## dude (Sep 18, 2013)

I'm not sure why Canon created another mount. It's really perplexing to me. The M, as it is currently, needs a better sensor and faster focus. I may jump on a dual pixel model.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Personally, I think Canon was trying to "BUY" a customer base for the camera. It may very well have been a really smart decision, since so many people are now quite happy with it.
> 
> I think I'd consider buying one with the dual pixel sensor and fast AF but I also want the ability to tether one to my pc for in studio use. Wi-Fi, GPS, and tilting touch screen of course



I agree. Of course, it's only a smart decision as far as Canon USA is concerned if they continue to develop the system, i.e., by releasing new EF-M lenses, etc. (including the one which is already available elsewhere in the world).

I wouldn't have paid $600-800 for the M. When they announced the 70D's DPAF technology, it was obvious that's a perfect fit for a mirrorless camera, which will end up in the M line soon. But when they dropped the price to $300 (which was after the 70D announcement), it made sense to buy the current M. The one with the 70D's sensor will obviously be priced much higher, making $300 a cheaper way to evaluate the system. I bought the current M with the idea that if I liked it enough to replace it with the new DPAF version, the current one would make an ideal body for IR conversion.


----------



## Tyroop (Sep 18, 2013)

I went out today with the EOS M, EF-EOS M mount adapter, and a bag of lenses: EF 400mm f/5.6L, EF 70-200 f/4L IS, EF 17-40mm f/4L, EF 85mm f/1.8. As soon as I picked up my backpack containing the lenses I was reminded what it is I like about the EOS M system. I also took a tripod and ballhead to add to my load.

The image quality was fine, but the EOS M doesn't lend itself well to being used with long EF lenses. Composing and focusing a telephoto lens at arms' length while looking at the LCD is difficult, and even more difficult in bright sunshine. The AF is also problematic with long lenses in certain conditions, and I'm not referring to speed. I tried to focus on a dragonfly with the 70-200mm, but just couldn't lock focus no matter how I tried. It kept focusing on the background, no matter what AF options I chose. This would have been easy with my 40D.

If you are going to carry heavy, bulky lenses around you may as well carry an SLR body. You already have a heavy load, so a bit more isn't going to make much difference and shooting will be less frustrating and easier with an SLR compared to the EOS M.

I wasn't sure whether my EOS M system would be good enough to replace my SLR kit for the type of photos that I (personally) take - we all have different needs. It is good enough for 90% of the photos I take, but I still need an SLR sometimes.

I regard my SLR and EOS M as separate systems. The EOS M as a small, light, everyday camera that is easy to carry around and the SLR for more specialised or difficult shooting conditions. The adapter allows me to combine the two to create one system, but I plan to keep them separate. I will always find a use for the adapter, but as I have now decided to keep the systems separate it's not as important as I first thought.

http://phil.uk.net/photography/canon_EF-EOS_M_mount_adapter.html


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 18, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > At a firesale price of $299 many bought one.
> ...



It is human nature, some of the people bashing it when it was released now sing its praises. 
I thought it was an interesting camera at release but it didn't fit my kit and didn't have enough options.
I kept that in mind when it went to $300, a cheap price didn't make it suddenly fit my kit. It was a bargain, but over the years I have learned that bargains sometimes end up being dust collectors.

If a new M has the things you mention I will consider it as well, especially the tilting touch screen. I have a few macro shots in mind that I think that option would be very handy.


----------



## fxk (Sep 19, 2013)

I've got plenty of EF glass - and an adapter for the M - why the heck not? 
If you don't already have glass, and want to stay small, then probably not.

I also have Leica-M to EOS-M adapter so I can use my favorite vintage glass.

It's just another body. Use it. Use the glass you got. Run what you brung.

If I had a 400 f/2.8 I HAPPILY hang an EOS-M off the back. 8)


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 30, 2013)

I caved into the fire sale - bought the whole kit (EOS M, 22, 18-55, and 90EX) from 1saleaday yesterday. I was a bit disappointed to read through the manual and see the burst speed was only high with EF/EF-S lenses and that the focus was by wire on the M lenses, but I can live with that. I love the fact that it has almost the same features and menus as the EOS bodies and I'm excited to use it in place of my old Panasonic LX-5 with it's crappy lever zoom and lousy performance above ISO800.

I was wondering how many of you are actually using the adapter. It looks like it's really awkward to use it with any of the L lenses and I'd like to know how many actually use it.


----------



## dude (Oct 30, 2013)

I use my 24-70 2.8 on it all the time.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 30, 2013)

I've used it with the 40 2.8 a couple of times. No point in putting anything much larger as I may as well take my DSLR (which is far more responsive, no shutter lag, etc.)


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 30, 2013)

Act444 said:


> I've used it with the 40 2.8 a couple of times. No point in putting anything much larger as I may as well take my DSLR (which is far more responsive, no shutter lag, etc.)


I guess that's kind of how I see it. I realize it makes a compact back up body, but if I'm hauling my 5DIII, it's usually no big deal for my 5DII to tag along.

Come to think of it, though, I've only ever used my back up body for spare batteries and memory cards. I've never actually had to use it as a backup, only a second body. Canon cameras rock!


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Oct 30, 2013)

I mostly use the 22mm that it came with. When I mount EF lenses, it is usually either the 90/24tse or the 100L. It is the only crop sensor body I have and I enjoy using each of those lenses on the M with ML running.

While I do agree that it is awkward to handle the rig with EF lenses mounted, I got used to it fairly quickly. I tend to have the full weight of the rig in my left hand and operate the touchscreen with my right. Having the touchscreen shutter release option on also helps when I am shooting this way.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 30, 2013)

I did a walk about the other day with the M + 85mm f/1.8 hung around my neck as a second body. I was actually pleasantly surprised with the combo. Still very light and balance isn't terrible, and in many ways it was like having the 135L along (in terms of FOV). It was also one of the first times I've really gotten the narrow depth of field that I like with the M. I shot it essentially wide open the whole time and was really pleased with the images I got, in including this one:




Miyabi by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Here's a second that I liked (I was getting rained/sleeted on while taking this shot) that shows off the narrow dOF and nice sharpness.


----------



## bholliman (Nov 1, 2013)

When I first received my M in July, I used it with EF lenses quite a bit. But, now I mostly just use it with the 22/2 lens I bought it with. When I do use EF lenses now it's the 50 1.4 for portraits or 70-200 2.8 II + 2x III extender when I need the additional APS-C reach. 

Generally, I just use it in its most compact configuration for portability when I don't want to carry a large camera.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 11, 2013)

Here's one I took a day ago with the 85mm f/1.8 mounted on the M. I've found that a fairly intriguing combination. I had forgotten, however, how BAD the CA is on the 85, particularly in higher contrast scenes like what winter provides. The sharpness and DOF of the combo is nice, and the balance is still manageable.




Duck! by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## fsgray (Nov 11, 2013)

Since I don't forsee any telephoto primes coming soon for the M, this combination is intriguing me as well. Too bad the adapter is another $100!



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Here's one I took a day ago with the 85mm f/1.8 mounted on the M. I've found that a fairly intriguing combination. I had forgotten, however, how BAD the CA is on the 85, particularly in higher contrast scenes like what winter provides. The sharpness and DOF of the combo is nice, and the balance is still manageable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

