« Do Reviews Really Review? And Other Matters of Contention | Main | Music Notes »

Friday, 23 December 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Great! I can't wait for your review!

[I'd need a videographer, though. --Mike]

As an EOS M3 owner, I am unimpressed and even disappointed in the M5. I was looking forward to an M4 that I hoped would have a fully articulated screen. Instead. they made the screen flip downward 180°, the most useless feature I can imagine. Okay, so they couldn't do the 180° upward flip because of the now built in EVF (which does not flip up 90° like its detachable predecessor) but what good is the downward flip if it is behind your tripod? And how awkward is it to handhold the camera for selfies with it flipped down? Come on Canon. You can do much better. IMHO the M3 is an underappreciated camera that could have been even better but the M5 isn't it.


Can't wait to read a proper review of the M5. You know, grammatically correct with insightful opinion and not just a regurgitation of specs like those reviews which I usually ignore:)

At least the viewfinder hump is in the middle, in between the film canister and the takeup spool. Wait, no, it's digital, so that doesn't matter. The viewfinder is centered on the mirror- no, wait, it's mirrorless. At least it looks comfortingly familiar, like an SLR camera. How retro! I wouldn't want to miss out on mashing my nose into the back of the camera.

I don't see the point of this camera for Canon,
Like Nikon, Canon's "strategy" (if it could be called that) for mirrorless appears to be nothing more an afterthought. Their selection of APS-C specific EF-S lenses is very poor, and none are L-specification. This means, if you require a pro-level lens, you're still using a large, heavy Canon L lens on a small and unwieldy camera body. I just love the thought of trying to use a Canon 70-200 L IS II on a camera body the size of a bar of soap. Also, the flippy LCD will swivel to face the front of the camera, but on the bottom of the camera body. Try using that when you want to monitor yourself shooting video on a tripod. Stupid. Yes, the engineers met the requirement that the flippy screen must face forward. Is it useable in the real world? No. Afterthought.

Canon's approach to mirrorless reminds me of Chevrolet building the Corvair just so they could say they made an air-cooled car (to compete with Volkswagen). The fatal flaw in both cases was thinking that it was the engineering specification (air-cooled or mirrorless) that met customer's needs. Both companies got it completely wrong. People bought Volkwagens because they were durable, reliable and economical, not because they were air-cooled. People buy mirrorless because they want a small, light, compact system of lenses and bodies that provide FF image quality.

The EF-M 22mm F2 pancake lens is divine and extremely underpriced. Great bokeh, great central sharpness wide open, high micro and macro contrast. It's a delight.

Having shot with both a cannon and a canon, I prefer the single n. much quieter

(I was just jestin', per your earlier post on reviews.)

As a 20 plus year Canon user, I've been waiting for a 7D2 style pro mirrorless. This ain't it. There may be a Fuji or Olympus in my future—being a non-fanboy is a good thing.

Here's Ming Thein's well written review of the new Apple 13" MBP https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/12/22/review-apple-macbook-pro-13-late-2016-with-touch-bar/

"2.36m-Dot EVF, Touch and Drag AF Control"

This intrigues me. Seems a bit fiddly though.

No one told the body designers that it's not a DSLR?

Then someone beat it with an ugly stick? I know, taste is subjective, but somehow . . .
Jim B., Oly started this foolishness, with the E-PL7. Why is a mystery until one looks at the E-PL5/6. The Oly accessory shoe for VF, flash, etc. made it impossible for the screen to flip up a full 180º, so the 'selfie' mode was ineffective.

Is Canon's copy also mysterious? Have Canon decided that Oly is so cool that they can rub some off?? Far more mundane, I fear, as the VF eyecup clearly would prevent flipping up a full 180º, so down it is.

Has the E-PL7 been a hit in Japan? Oly has kept the flip design for the E-PL8, so it must not have been a sales disaster.

M5? I get the M4 = death thing, but didn't the M5 model name nearly bring a great camera company to its demise?

It looks like their big DSLRs which come in two main varieties too heavy to hold or too small to hold. Assuming this is typical mirrorless size, it looks like it's grippable by children and the president-elect.

Also, that shutter button is in the worst possible location for anything but eyelevel use. It looks awkward for finger AND thumb.

They could have kept it the same size but more ergonomic by moving the lens further away from the grip side of the camera and dispensed with the space for the imaginary film can.

Maybe I'm just grumpy because my canon printer needs $2000+ in repairs one month out of warranty.

[Wow, very sorry to hear that. My washing machine needs more than half its value in repairs and it's only 4 years old, but it's less money than that. I will stop feeling sorry for myself. --Mike]

I was enamored of the M5 from the spec sheet. Now that the M5's widely available, I'm seeing more reviews that illuminate shortcomings, such as an unresponsive shutter and long EVF blackout time.

Other things that matter to me in a camera never make it into reviews. I'm resigned to renting one to test the oddball things I care about.

I wonder if mirrorless may not be for me, though. I got a little polycarbonate Canon Rebel and 24mm pancake and 50mm f/1.8 for a small and light kit. The camera's nearly as small as my hands can accommodate and cost 1/2 of an M5, 22mm lens, and adapter.

Yeah, the Rebel's not all that, but neither is the M5. Perhaps I should try the Fuji XT-2 to give mirrorless its due.

I just saw one of those M5 bodies in a Best Buy earlier today. I didn't pick it up, but I did notice how small it was compared to the DSLRs next to it. EM-5 II small.

Why does Canon make cameras that look so blah if not just plain ugly?

"Great! I can't wait for your review!

[I'd need a videographer, though. --Mike]"

Maybe you could hire one named Mike Johnston :-)


This is the most disappointing new camera purchase that I have encountered in a while. All of the major camera makers have been releasing fantastic equipment over the past few years. However, it really feels as if Canon spent more effort limiting and downgrading this camera than building the best product possible. Unacceptable from a company that should have done so much better. So-so build, disappointing high ISO image quality, questionable low-light autofocus, limited features, and overpriced. Other than the larger sensor it looks like they took this directly from the Nikon V1 playbook.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007