« Blog Note | Main | Mikey Likes It »

Tuesday, 04 May 2021


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

I wonder if Canon is as much to blame about the popularity of the M line - great little cameras, but seemingly intentionally limited. A flew great lenses but limited selection, and seemingly a dead end if you wanted to have a higher end camera or lenses. Almost as if the design teams were silo'd off and wee not communicating.

It's a nifty camera, although, without IBIS, not as attractive as it could be.

We need 100Mp to get excited these days, judging by the reception to the GFX100S. $6K? No prob! It's a top seller. As for the Canon M6 series, things are afoot that will put the nail in the APS-C coffin; namely, the new 24/40/50 "cupcake" trio from Sony, the upcoming 28/40 Z pancakes from Nikon, and the RF 35 and 50/1.8 from Canon. I've been dreaming of compact, affordable FF since the D30 arrived and it's finally here with the Nikon Z5, Sony A7R2 (when on sale for $1298 as it is now) and EOS RP (I'd wait for the updated version of that one, though).

Nothing wannabe about an iPhone. They produce better files than a "good enough" D30.

Straight-Out-Of-Phone. Shot with an iPhone XS, the 3024x3024 photo was reduced to 400x400 using Affinity Photo. Check-out the detail in the stucco.

As a longtime Canon user I'd pick the 90D over any of Canon's M series cameras. Why is that? How about all of the superb EF lenses that fit with no adapter needed.

You can get an XE4 for the same price and it has a viewfinder. If you add the 27mm lens it's $1049. I have way too many Fuji lenses, but I particularly like the 27mm. So much so, that I actually coughed out money to buy the new one with the aperture ring. So you are basically getting a $400 lens for $200. They are roughly the same size, but it's hard to see the appeal of the Canon without the viewfinder.

FujiFilm X-E4 is 8% (9.3 mm) wider and 7% (4.9 mm) taller than Canon EOS M6.
FujiFilm X-E4 is 27% (11.8 mm) thinner than Canon EOS M6.
FujiFilm X-E4 [364 g] weights 30% (156 grams) less than Canon EOS M6 [520 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

I have probably mentioned this thought before but an APS/C based weatherproofed M body with a couple of fast sealed lenses should dominate sports/action. The tech is there and has been for a while. Why do people still use big heavy systems for that work? But then I thought the same of the Olympus E-M1 family. People seem to change systems at the drop of a hat, so why trade up to the same old, why not change the paradigm. What am I missing.

That so-called "full-frame" thing seems to have a stranglehold on people's imaginations, very difficult to shake it off.

Those Canon 1D MkIIs, and particularly, the MkII "N", were GREAT cameras. I shot a LOT of credentialed professional motorsports with those with excellent results for 13 years, all the way to Q3, 2016, when the Fujifilm X-T2 shipped.

John Hopkins, Rizla Suzuki, US MotoGP, Laguna Seca

Back then I was still shooting film and when people said I should go digital with the 2, 3, 4Mp cameras of the time, I used to say "I've got a 30Mp camera already." I was meaning my Nikon LS4000 scanner. I used to scan all my film.

Then I bought a proper digital camera, the Konica Minolta Dimage A2 with 8Mp. That converted me and I never used film again. My next camera was the Fuji S100fs at 11Mp. Loved it.

My main camera for several years has been an EOS M-3 and I don't understand why the M series doesn't bet more attention. My major complaint is that their lens lineup stops at 200mm. Granted I could put the adapter on (I have one) and use the EOS 100-200mm or longer but that kills the point of having a smaller and lighter camera. Even a 2x teleconverter would be helpful although I prefer some longer lenses. The 35mm macro BTW is an excellent lens and focuses all the way from 1.2:1 out to infinity so it can be treated as a 'normal' lens for the APSc sensor.

As it is pouring rain outside right now, it occurs to me that I have several bodies and the lenses to go with them, but nothing I would consider taking out in a t-storm, let alone anything I would take to the beach, on a kayak, or to snorkel. If Canon (or Nikon) wants to make a splash, it can make an APS-C underwater camera / lens combo about the size of an M6, with appropriately sized lenses. Then we'll talk.

Meh. With no viewfinder it's basically an overpriced point-and-shoot, altogether unusable if you're over 45 and have normal presbyopia. Yes, you can buy that add-on viewfinder, but that makes it even more expensive and makes the package looks like the Balda and Welta roll-film cameras from the 1930s.
I'll stick with my Fuji X-E3, which was considerably cheaper and offers a ton of lenses.

I shot with a (Canon) M3 for a few years; now my daughter enjoys the camera, though I can't get her to appreciate the 22mm lens, she's stuck on the prime. I use Fujifilm now, X-T20, X-E4, and honestly I miss a lot about the M3, and the M6 looks really attractive. Fujifilm's got all these great film sims but they seem to miss the one thing I loved about the M3, a good standard profile that feels at once accurate and a little punchy. I struggle with Fujifilm colors honestly. I get all the grousing about the intentional limitations of the EOS-M series; people overlooked the M3 and I thought it was an excellent camera!

Michael R at LL convinced me to get that 3 meg Canon which launched me into digital. I miss him. But fortunately he also introduced me to this writer Mike Johnston who is still wonderfully active. I have never felt there was any upgrade to TOP available or needed.

changed from 5D/35L to M3/22mm, very happy, in particular my shoulders

I’ve been using the M6 Mk2 since November 20. It was an upgrade from a 60D which I’d been using for about 9 years. ( I was actually quite happy with that camera but decided to put it on ‘light duties’ as a backup camera since it had done a lot of work ). After 25 years + of using EOS SLRs the M6 2 ’s handling is quite different but I’m bonding with it


I was initially put off buying the camera by the lack of built in viewfinder but after some thought I realised that I never use the viewfinder while tripod shooting & never use the rear screen for handheld shooting ( apart from post shot image checks ). I miss the fully articulated screen of the 60D for tripod shooting but was planning to start tethered shooting via my partners’ iPad anyway. I’m quite happy with the detachable viewfinder. I actually think the camera looks quite funky with it attached

Adapter & adapted lenses

I got the canon adapter to use my existing lenses ( Canon, Sigma & Voigtlander glass ). It seems to work fine with them. It obviously adds bulk to the lenses but I use pancakes for handheld work so its still a small camera / lens combo. I actually like the adapter for tripod work: It has a detachable tripod mount which balances better than camera mounting. The adapter & mount feel like a very solid combination.

Autofocus + kit lens

One of the reasons I went mirrorless was that I prefer to to use manual focus, so the camera’s supposedly great autofocus is mostly wasted on me. I did get the EFM 15-45 lens to use as a purely utilitarian lens ( for quick record keeping shots in our workshop ). The autofocus seems very reliable. I’m quite pleased with the 15-45 as well - very small & light with useable image quality.

Pressing a button to get a magnified image in the viewfinder is a great help for handheld shooting. I’m not quite as convinced by focus peaking but have assigned a button to easily swith it on / off.

Image quality

Coming from a 9 year old camera I’m seriously impressed by the M6’s image quality: 32MP is very nice to have but the dynamic range of the camera gives me much more ability to open up shadow areas. ( Before anyone starts correcting me about misuse of the term ‘dynamic range’ - don’t bother I’m not interested ). The camera was purchased to photograph stained glass. Getting a decently exposed shot of stained glass in a church interior can be a bit of a bugger so this dynamic range is handy. Also handy is the abilty to set the camera to take seven bracketed shots.

( Disclosure: I’m not an architectural photog. The usual photo scenario consists of me having to get in & out of the church in less than an hour, often while some churchwarden / vicar is stand by me tapping his foot , looking at his watch & saying that he has to be away in five minutes ).

I also use the camera to play around with my own stuff - but that would justify its’ existence.

I miss Michael Reichmann. RIP

I’ve one of the original EOS M6’s, and with the little EF-M 22mm f/2 pancake, it’s a great little camera. I don’t even miss an EVF...much.

This Canon EOS M6 really caught my attention; its physical Goldilocks size and generous grip is extremely close to that of a Lumix GX1 <https://camerasize.com/compare/#183,829>; yet it has a larger APSc sized sensor. If only its electronic view finder were builtin. Panasonic please take note, you should use this camera as reference for a GX10.

I have the Canon M6 and M6ii cameras. I like the viewfinders. The view is excellent and your nose is back far enough from the screen so that you don't inadvertently move the focus. The older DC1 EVF also works with both models and can tilt up. I find that very handy. The auto-focus Viltrox 56mm is a great lens for use with these cameras. Sigma also makes lenses for M cameras now. I mostly use the EF-S 15-85mm lens with an adapter. It focuses fast and accurately.

Personally, I really like the Eos M3/6 body format. The M3 wasn’t quite there for me in terms of AF. The M6 is definitely good enough most of the time.

Incidentally, while not as stylish as its replacement, the EVF-DC1 is better in my view as it flips up.

M6's removable $199 EVF-DC2 viewfinder, but that's up to you.

No EVF built in? I don't get it.

Not much for $850. OK it has a 32MB sensor.

I miss Michael Reichmann also. He was a great help to me and many others.

I appreciate that this thread has turned into a fitting memorial for Michael Reichmann. I remember watching the video of him displaying 9” by 13” prints from the D30 and saying they were superior to prints he could make from 35 mm film. Floored me at the time. And I’m another, Mike, who first learned of your work through Michael.

I see Stephen Scharf's post [Hi!]. I'm not surprised, as he was an early adopter of Canon for motorsports.

He was also the one who helped me go Canon DSLR, lending me a D60 for a weekend, so I could test OM glass using a hand made adapter I'd acquired. Proof found in the pudding, I bought the same size 6MP sensor in the original Digital Rebel.

Eight happy years with Canon ended with the advent of the Oly E-M5. The mirrorless Canon FF and APS-C cameras were waaay too late to the party for me. µ4/3 and Sony A7 FF bodies were already doing the job.

1300 bucks for a camera that doesn't have an eye-level finder and full frame? Who is this for? A pro pal of mine that bought a camera needing an add-on finder to use eye-level back in the dawn of digital, said it's always been a drag to use, and it's sticking up there begging to get knocked off.

Holding the camera out in front of you otherwise? Nope.

I have four EOS-M cameras all purchased at substantial discount perhaps due to slow sales.
I started with the M+22mm, a tiny package not much bigger than a S90 or a bar of soap but the image quality was a big leap.
I bought an M3 with the 11-22 lens for a trip to Japan and it was a wonderful companion. When I compare it to my D800e with a 16-35 size weight and image quality the Canon gets the nod and the shoulder.
So sold was I that when the M5 was remaindered out for $350 I bought two.
In my mind the M5 with built-in viewfinder and exposure comp dial is the best of the bunch and the 11-22 lens is the reason to use it.

Hi Mike,
Funnily enough Michael Reichmann steered me away from Canon to Nikon with a review of a photo trip to Antarctica he led. He happened to comment on weather related equipment failures they had during the trip, and listed several digital Canon problems. And although he had only a small sample of Nikon users on the trip, there were zero failures reported by the Nikon group.
At that time, I had just booked a trip to Antarctica. Plus I was about to change over to digital for the convenience of not carrying film.
I also planned to change from primes to zooms (one on each body) so the expense, while large, was no more than going digital with Canon.
Thus I bought two Nikon bodies and two Nikon zooms.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007