Canon v. Canon

The other day in the "Competition from Used" post I said, "It's almost like we're in the exact opposite situation of the one we were in at the turn of the millennium." Which got me to thinking.

Back then, Canon had just introduced the D30 (not 30D, but D30) a "reasonably priced" digital SLR that had a three megapixel sensor. It was bigger news in the photography world then than anything at all is now. Photo writers across the globe breathlessly ventured the holy-grail claim—that the D30 it was almost as good as, or as good as, or a little bit better than, the results you could get with 35mm film! This was hotly and happily debated far and wide. I was Editor-in-Chief of Photo Techniques magazine at the time, and at the magazine we offered a selection of "Collector Prints" taken with the new D30 by a guy from Canada I had met a few years earlier by the name of Michael Reichmann. Michael's prints were meant to show off the new Canon and make the case for digital as something that might actually be viable for enthusiast non-pro photographers, an idea to which there was still a lot of resistance at the time.

Now cut to today and compare that situation to this: the Canon EOS M6 Mark II is in its second iteration already and it's hardly even made a blip on my personal radar screen...even though I prefer small cameras and tend to pay attention to them. Lens options are limited, but paired with its standout 32mm ƒ/1.4 normal prime lens, its capability compared to Y2K norms is just insanely good. It's a small carry-around camera no bigger, really, than an original Barnack Leica. (Strange that Leica would let another company call any camera M6, but maybe some kind of statute of limitations has run out.) The little lens, which is about two and a quarter inches long (56.5mm) and weighs just slightly more than eight and a quarter ounces (235g), is nevertheless a no-apologies fast normal with superlative performance—and very nice bokeh I might add. The little camera has a spectacular 32-megapixel sensor (more than ten times as many pixels as the D30, n.b.) and is reputed to be very fast. Any way you look at it, the little M6 Mark II runs rings around the hot news from October 2000.

Despite all this over-the-top goodness, though, the M6 II barely moves the needle in today's world as far as consumer excitement as concerned, at least that I can tell. Certainly nothing like the frenzy of interest in the D30 in 2000.

The lens and camera together cost $1,328, which might be somewhat of an impediment to interest, but then, it's neither a compromised camera nor meant to be a budget alternative. And consider that, adjusted for inflation, that $1,328 would have been only $866 in 2000, the year the Canon D30 came out at $3,000 and DPReview called it an "unbeatable" value for money. Put the other way around, the D30 would cost $4,600 today. That was cheap compared to the digital SLRs that newsrooms were paying $25,000 for only a few years earlier. And by the way, DPReview calls the M6 Mark II "a good bit cheaper" than the Sony it competes against (they must mean the A6600). Of course, you might also want the M6's removable $199 EVF-DC2 viewfinder, but that's up to you.

The M6's only problem? Odd, but it might be a little too old fashioned. Not enough bigger/better than its biggest existential threat and wannabe competitor, the smartphone.

Mike

Book of Interest this week:

How Photography Became Contemporary Art: Inside an Artistic Revolution from Pop to the Digital Age, by Andy Grundberg, Yale University Press, 296 pages. A longtime critic and observer attempts a synthesis. Good reading. Also available from The Book Depository with free shipping worldwide.

Original contents copyright 2021 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Ken Bennett: "Back in the fall of 2000, the university where I work hosted a presidential debate. I was going to cover it shooting all film, of course, but Canon Professional Services offered to loan me the as-yet unreleased D30 digital camera. So I got one and shot some test images, figuring they would be okay for maybe a website, and I was amazed at the overall quality of those photos. I ended up shooting most of the events surrounding the debate and some of the debate itself with that D30. Had a double-truck image in the alumni magazine from one frame, and it looked great. Nothing like today, of course, but easily comparable to or better than the Fujicolor 800 color neg we were shooting at the time.

"Then I had to send it back, which turned out to be a huge blessing. I had shot 1,500 frames and had no idea how to handle them; editing, viewing, captions—none of it. I was used to shooting film and scanning individual images for print reproduction (or making actual prints in a darkroom). So I spent the next couple of months figuring out how to manage all the digital files. Then we got our first D30 that winter, the second one a few months later, and a pair of the original 1D bodies the following year. (Four megapixels! Eight frames per second! Amazing autofocus! Seriously, they were da bomb, and the later 1D Mark II was my favorite Canon ever. Shot a lot of good photos with those.)

"Kudos to Canon for the D30. It changed my life and my career in so many amazing ways. I could go on at length.  :-)  "

Tom Burke: "I use Canon cameras and have for many years, so the M line ought to interest me. However, it doesn't—there aren't enough good lenses (and none from third party suppliers that I know of) and a lot of the cameras are missing viewfinders—I need a VF.

"I was however attracted to that sensor, so I bought the M6's cousin, the 90D, which has the same sensor in an APS-C DSLR body. Yes it's bigger and heavier than the M6 but it's lighter than the full frame camera I had previously. I'm delighted with it, and given the price of Canon's R series, I suspect I've bought my Final Camera. The 90D and my iPhone 12 Pro will do me for the foreseeable future.

"I never had a Canon D30, but I did have its successor, the D60, which I bought used. That was my first DSLR and was the game-changer for me—previously I'd had EOS 35mm SLRs."

R. Edelman: "The Canon D30 made me think of Bill Biggart, the photographer who was killed at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. He had some film cameras and a D30. The only images that survived were from the D30. Even though the lens was ripped from the camera, the compact flash card survived. That's one tough camera."

Ed. note: Bill Biggart's website is still up, and contains a picture of his ruined D30 as well as a small selection of his recovered 9/11 images. 

Comments

[Rob L]

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.

[John]

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).

[c.d.embrey]

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.

[steve]

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).

[Robert Roaldi]

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.

[Stephen Scharf]

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

[Peter Croft]

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.

[James Bullard]

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.

[Ken]

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.

[Scott]

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.

[Douglas Reilly]

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!

[Jack Mac]

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.
Jack

[Peter]

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

[Graeme Scott]

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

Viewfinder

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

[Tam]

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.

[jp41]

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.

[Doug Payne]

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.

[Barry Reid]

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.

[John Krill]

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.

[Sharon]

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

[Peter]

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.

[Moose]

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.

[Crabby Umbo]

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.

[Richard Alan Fox]

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.

[James]

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.