Jump to content

Any love for the Canon EOS M5?


andrgl
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have an M5 and is my travel camera mostly for photos because my 1dx and 1dx II are too big for that. I had a M before but the M5 it is much better.

I also use the M5 as remote camera or as wide angle second body for some stuff that I cover.

I have only the 11-22 and the 22 2.0 for the rest I use my EF collection.

 

Regarding video I have used only a couple of time a C camera and it is just ok very similar to the 80D, classical canon 1080p

 

For photos:

The good:

+ photo quality, it is good with good DR finally at 100-400 ISO. Classical Canon sensor so I process the Raws as I do with the one for 1Dx. M5 more noisy but to be expected

+ ergonomics

+ touch screen

+ touch screen even when off can be used to change focus point while looking in to EVF, very handy

+ remote port

+ 7/9 fps

+ DPAF very accurate and works even low light. Fast but not blazingly fast.

+ size

+ 11-22 is very very good with IS and tiny and quite affordable. This is why I use it a lot as a second body for wide-angle shoots.

+ 22 2.0 is also very good and super tiny and cheap. A bit slow on the AF side but still usable

+ adapter works well and most EF lens AF work well and quite fast. I have used quite a bit the 24 1.4 and 50 1.2 on it and with great success. I also use the 8-15 fisheye on it quite often

+ wifi

The bad:

- small buffer in RAW

- takes a lot of time to clear the buffer

- much slower than the 1dx in operations like picture review, etc…

- EVF is not great but I hate EVF so maybe I’m not the right guy to comment on it

- no live view while taking burst. A no go for action/sport

- no fully silent mode (fully electronic shutter). Why why and one more time why?!?

 

For video:

+ DPAF very similar to the 1DXII

+ 60fps same quality as 30fps

+ canon colors

- no 4k

- classical soft canon 1080

- less bitrate than the 80D

 

I would not recommend it as primary camera for video there are better choice in the price range.

Where it shines is a travel, backup and eventually B/C camera for canon user thanks to the tiny size but full support including good AF with the EF lens. If my primary system would not be a canon I would not have brought the M5 but for my need is quite good. Of course if it would have had 4k 30p even only at 4:2:0 100 mbits would have been much better for video.

IMG_0414-X3.jpg

IMG_0584-X4.jpg

Untitled-2v2crop-X4.jpg

Untitled-3panoview-X4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, gt3rs said:

I have an M5 and is my travel camera mostly for photos because my 1dx and 1dx II are too big for that. I had a M before but the M5 it is much better.

I also use the M5 as remote camera or as wide angle second body for some stuff that I cover.

I have only the 11-22 and the 22 2.0 for the rest I use my EF collection.

 

Regarding video I have used only a couple of time a C camera and it is just ok very similar to the 80D, classical canon 1080p

 

For photos:

The good:

+ photo quality, it is good with good DR finally at 100-400 ISO. Classical Canon sensor so I process the Raws as I do with the one for 1Dx. M5 more noisy but to be expected

+ ergonomics

+ touch screen

+ touch screen even when off can be used to change focus point while looking in to EVF, very handy

+ remote port

+ 7/9 fps

+ DPAF very accurate and works even low light. Fast but not blazingly fast.

+ size

+ 11-22 is very very good with IS and tiny and quite affordable. This is why I use it a lot as a second body for wide-angle shoots.

+ 22 2.0 is also very good and super tiny and cheap. A bit slow on the AF side but still usable

+ adapter works well and most EF lens AF work well and quite fast. I have used quite a bit the 24 1.4 and 50 1.2 on it and with great success. I also use the 8-15 fisheye on it quite often

+ wifi

The bad:

- small buffer in RAW

- takes a lot of time to clear the buffer

- much slower than the 1dx in operations like picture review, etc…

- EVF is not great but I hate EVF so maybe I’m not the right guy to comment on it

- no live view while taking burst. A no go for action/sport

- no fully silent mode (fully electronic shutter). Why why and one more time why?!?

 

For video:

+ DPAF very similar to the 1DXII

+ 60fps same quality as 30fps

+ canon colors

- no 4k

- classical soft canon 1080

- less bitrate than the 80D

 

I would not recommend it as primary camera for video there are better choice in the price range.

Where it shines is a travel, backup and eventually B/C camera for canon user thanks to the tiny size but full support including good AF with the EF lens. If my primary system would not be a canon I would not have brought the M5 but for my need is quite good. Of course if it would have had 4k 30p even only at 4:2:0 100 mbits would have been much better for video.

IMG_0414-X3.jpg

IMG_0584-X4.jpg

Untitled-2v2crop-X4.jpg

Untitled-3panoview-X4.jpg

Great info and beautiful images, thanks! 

I didn't know about the small buffer in RAW. So even if hacked, it's not going to be that good for RAW video? That's sad. 

I use my Eos M1 with c-mount lenses and it produces beautiful videos in RAW. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2017 at 10:52 AM, mercer said:

Well, IMO, the brilliance of the DSLR movement was that it gave the indie filmmaker the ability to create shallow depth of field.

With close ups and blurred backgrounds filmmakers could shoot inconspicuously in public and not need the budget to worry about sets or people walking by. The softish nature of Canon DSLR video is a plus with close ups... who wants razor sharp portrait shots?

Now obviously it's difficult to make a film without any wide angles, and this is where that Canon soft look fails.

My whole point was that people are too crazy, worrying about the next and best advancement in IQ, when in most instances it doesn't help their work. I have been guilty of it.

Look at Kendy Ty, a man revered for his t2i films shot with one lens. He recently switched over to the a6300 and in my opinion his work has actually suffered for it.

On the other hand, people like what they like... and I couldn't care less how they spend their money.

For me and my work, if I'm not shooting Raw, I want a camera that will make my life easier, so DPAF is definitely something on my radar. I love Canon's IS and focus peaking, so those features outweigh my need for 4K, especially since most consumer 4K looks brittle, oversharpened and plastic.

Also, other than the a7s, for its lowlight capabilities, and GoPro, for its tiny footprint, the 5D is the most used "consumer" camera used in Hollywood films. If it's good enough for George Miller...

Look at the Zacuto Shootout and how well the GH2 was received. Wasn't it Coppola's favorite? If that shootout occurred today and they pit the GH5 against the Alexa, I'm not so sure they'd receive the same results... but maybe. 

But I get it... I want 4K too. But do I really need it? But again this is just my opinion... I have very specific needs due to the films I am working on. I need an inconspicuous footprint to get my shots. Other people have other needs and tastes. In the end, whatever produces work the creator is happy with, or can afford, is the right tool for the job. For some that's 4K, for some it's soft DSLR video from a Canon.

It's always more about the artist than his brushes. That doesn't change the fact that good tools make it easier to do quality work quickly.

I'm also fairly sure most of the crash cams in Fury Road were Blackmagic. For sure the Snorricam on Tom Hardy at the beginning was the 2.5k.

On 6/19/2017 at 10:52 AM, mercer said:

 

On 6/19/2017 at 10:52 AM, mercer said:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, samuel.cabral said:

Great info and beautiful images, thanks! 

I didn't know about the small buffer in RAW. So even if hacked, it's not going to be that good for RAW video? That's sad. 

I use my Eos M1 with c-mount lenses and it produces beautiful videos in RAW. 

The buffer is much better than the original M and it is around 18-20 Raw photos and it takes around 8-10 seconds to clear it. It seems big but when you shoot at 7 or 9 fps it is just a two second burst and then you need to wait 10 seconds.... Not sure what it means in regards for RAW video assuming that there will ever be a ML for the M5

Btw the original M was the slowest camera that I ever had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

It's always more about the artist than his brushes. That doesn't change the fact that good tools make it easier to do quality work quickly.

13 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree Canon makes a great tool and its DPAF, color science, humble codec and great build quality are great tools.

And I don't think they should be dismissed by a lot of video enthusiasts simply because they don't shoot 4K. Other than 4K I'm unsure what they're lacking that would make a videographers life any easier? With native lenses you don't need focus peaking due to DPAF. Their humble h.264 codec and amazing color science requires less need for grading... so expose to eye in camera with maybe a little latitude in either direction (I prefer slight underexposure with Canon cameras) and you're good to go. Probably the easiest, most dependable tool around. 

As far as Fury Road goes, I'm sure BlackMagic cameras were used as well, they used a shit ton of cameras in that movie, but it's fairly common knowledge that the 5D Mark ii was used extensively throughout the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 6:15 PM, mercer said:

I am not disagreeing with you, I was merely answering why Canon may be holding back investing R&D into things we may find important as a minority in the world of consumer cameras.

From a business standpoint, I can't say I disagree with their logic. As a consumer, I wish they offered more. 

But as an artist, can you say your work is any better than your GH1/GH2 days? Has any of these, rush to market, advancements made your work any better?

I am seriously asking your opinion on this. Because I am a fan of your work. Some of your early GH1 footage is inspiring, even to today's standards. I almost bought a GH2 yesterday after watching one of your earlier cinematography reels.

They are "holding back" on specs not because they want to, but because their hardware is not up to it yet.

Don't make the mistake of thinking there is some cunning plan at work here, there is not. 

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I wholeheartedly agree Canon makes a great tool and its DPAF, color science, humble codec and great build quality are great tools.

And I don't think they should be dismissed by a lot of video enthusiasts simply because they don't shoot 4K. Other than 4K I'm unsure what they're lacking that would make a videographers life any easier? With native lenses you don't need focus peaking due to DPAF. Their humble h.264 codec and amazing color science requires less need for grading... so expose to eye in camera with maybe a little latitude in either direction (I prefer slight underexposure with Canon cameras) and you're good to go. Probably the easiest, most dependable tool around. 

As far as Fury Road goes, I'm sure BlackMagic cameras were used as well, they used a shit ton of cameras in that movie, but it's fairly common knowledge that the 5D Mark ii was used extensively throughout the film.

Focus peaking is necessary for DMF, which is a very useful tool when shooting stills.

Traditional Canon DSLR 1080p is too soft for the world of large screen 4K TVs that currently form the bulk of the commercial lineup. What is or is not acceptable is determined by the current standard of displays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-6-20 at 4:46 PM, gt3rs said:

I have an M5 and is my travel camera mostly for photos because my 1dx and 1dx II are too big for that. I had a M before but the M5 it is much better.

I also use the M5 as remote camera or as wide angle second body for some stuff that I cover.

I have only the 11-22 and the 22 2.0 for the rest I use my EF collection.

 

Regarding video I have used only a couple of time a C camera and it is just ok very similar to the 80D, classical canon 1080p

 

For photos:

The good:

+ photo quality, it is good with good DR finally at 100-400 ISO. Classical Canon sensor so I process the Raws as I do with the one for 1Dx. M5 more noisy but to be expected

+ ergonomics

+ touch screen

+ touch screen even when off can be used to change focus point while looking in to EVF, very handy

+ remote port

+ 7/9 fps

+ DPAF very accurate and works even low light. Fast but not blazingly fast.

+ size

+ 11-22 is very very good with IS and tiny and quite affordable. This is why I use it a lot as a second body for wide-angle shoots.

+ 22 2.0 is also very good and super tiny and cheap. A bit slow on the AF side but still usable

+ adapter works well and most EF lens AF work well and quite fast. I have used quite a bit the 24 1.4 and 50 1.2 on it and with great success. I also use the 8-15 fisheye on it quite often

+ wifi

The bad:

- small buffer in RAW

- takes a lot of time to clear the buffer

- much slower than the 1dx in operations like picture review, etc…

- EVF is not great but I hate EVF so maybe I’m not the right guy to comment on it

- no live view while taking burst. A no go for action/sport

- no fully silent mode (fully electronic shutter). Why why and one more time why?!?

 

For video:

+ DPAF very similar to the 1DXII

+ 60fps same quality as 30fps

+ canon colors

- no 4k

- classical soft canon 1080

- less bitrate than the 80D

 

I would not recommend it as primary camera for video there are better choice in the price range.

Where it shines is a travel, backup and eventually B/C camera for canon user thanks to the tiny size but full support including good AF with the EF lens. If my primary system would not be a canon I would not have brought the M5 but for my need is quite good. Of course if it would have had 4k 30p even only at 4:2:0 100 mbits would have been much better for video.

IMG_0414-X3.jpg

IMG_0584-X4.jpg

Untitled-2v2crop-X4.jpg

Untitled-3panoview-X4.jpg

Hey! Do you mind teIling me which lens has the the faster AF performance? A 22mm native or a 35mm f2 ef adapted? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22mm native is not fast but I find usable, the big advantage of this lens is that it is super tiny so I can even keep it in the pockets and it is quite sharp.
I don't have the 35 f2.... but if you want I can compare the 22mm native with the adapted EF 24 1.4 II L?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

22mm native is not fast but I find usable, the big advantage of this lens is that it is super tiny so I can even keep it in the pockets and it is quite sharp.
I don't have the 35 f2.... but if you want I can compare the 22mm native with the adapted EF 24 1.4 II L?

That would be great! Many thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 0:22 AM, samuel.cabral said:

That would be great! Many thanks!

So on the M5 the 24 1.4 L it is a fraction quicker than the 22 2.0 but the difference is very small and imo not relevant. Both are very usable.

In general with DPAF the shorter the focal length is the more similar with phase detection DSLR AF speed is. For example the 24 1.4 there almost no difference between DPAF and phase detect but with the 200-400 f4 at 400 the difference is quite big.

Naturally it is a big difference in FL 35 to 22 so not sure why you want to compare them but IMO the 22 2.0 is a little gem so small yet sharp. The AF is a bit noisier than classical USM lenses. In term of size there is really no contest: http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.349,684.368.2,ha,t. It is also half the price.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
On 22/06/2017 at 11:16 PM, gt3rs said:

22mm native is not fast but I find usable, the big advantage of this lens is that it is super tiny so I can even keep it in the pockets and it is quite sharp.
I don't have the 35 f2.... but if you want I can compare the 22mm native with the adapted EF 24 1.4 II L?

Good to know.

The 35mm F2 IS by the way is a gem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, gt3rs said:

So on the M5 the 24 1.4 L it is a fraction quicker than the 22 2.0 but the difference is very small and imo not relevant. Both are very usable.

In general with DPAF the shorter the focal length is the more similar with phase detection DSLR AF speed is. For example the 24 1.4 there almost no difference between DPAF and phase detect but with the 200-400 f4 at 400 the difference is quite big.

Naturally it is a big difference in FL 35 to 22 so not sure why you want to compare them but IMO the 22 2.0 is a little gem so small yet sharp. The AF is a bit noisier than classical USM lenses. In term of size there is really no contest: http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.349,684.368.2,ha,t. It is also half the price.

 

 

I just wasn't expecting you to have a 22mm and the awesome 24mm. But gladly you have so the comparison was even fairer. Nice!
So can i assume that the EF performance on a M body is almost like a native lens? Make things easier to build a set!
Maybe soon we will see some (good, please) Speedboosters popping to make things even better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, samuel.cabral said:

I just wasn't expecting you to have a 22mm and the awesome 24mm. But gladly you have so the comparison was even fairer. Nice!
So can i assume that the EF performance on a M body is almost like a native lens? Make things easier to build a set!
Maybe soon we will see some (good, please) Speedboosters popping to make things even better.

Hard for me to compare the AF speed because I have 1 1Dx II, 1 1Dx and the M5 so in term of AF they are a bit on the extreme opposite. The DPAF on 1Dx II and the M5 seems to me about the same in term of speed with FF EF lenses. Still the 1Dx II is quite a bit faster with phase detect AF than in DPAF.

On the M5 I use the native M 11-22 and 22 2.0 and I use quite a bit the EF 50 1.2 adapted that works quite well in term of AF, I also use the 8-15 Fisheye and sometime the 24-105 F4. The M5 is for sure not an action camera... but the problem is not too much the AF but the VF blackout.

Bottom-line in video the AF speed of an adapted FF EF lenses is very similar between 1DxII and M5, for photo the 1DxII is quite a bit snappier when not in live view. As I said before DPAF becomes quite slow when using long lenses.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

One lens I'm curious in for Canon APS-C is the good old 17-55mm F2.8

I know it's sharp for a zoom and convenient, but is it cinematic? How's the rendering? Any samples?

I had this lens before, now my Brother in Law took it. I wasn't a huge fan too be honest. It's an alright lens but by no means perfect or anything special. I'd rate it's quality below that of the 24-105 and wide open it's not super clean. Now I use 16-35 f4 IS, which in comparison is an amazing lens and has a great look to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...