Canon EOS m

<p>The Canon EOS m has been much maligned. Principle complaints about it are slow focus, no internal flash and no evf. I had never considered buying the m as I had a Sony NEX 5N with kit lens, with an expensive evf, wide and tele lenses. It was a good camera but it was quite expensive and I could not use my array of Canon ef mount lenses without a 400 usd third party adapter. And, the evf although good did not match up to the optical view finders on my Canon dslr bodies IMO. The m came out a couple of years ago at about 800 usd list. Then in July of 2013 Canon made a firmware update correcting the slow focus to an acceptable rate. About that time the price m bodies and kit 18-55 lens came down precipitously to about 330 usd which caused a significant surge in m sales. It was called a "fire sale" in another forum. I could not avoid the temptation of picking one up as the price of the Canon made lens adapter came down from 200 to 130 USD. This adapter works with about any ef lens made and enables me to use all seven of my Canon ef mount lenses. Canon makes a 90ex flash which mounts on a standard canon flash mount. My first impression was that it appears insignificant but it is ETTL II and it hooks up to a short and Canon flash extension cord that I had laying around and now I can point it anywhere I want. I would like to find a mini stroboframe somewhere. There is no focus peaking on the m. <br>

The m has some great attributes. Number one, as I said, almost all my Canon equipment works on it. I even mounted it on my 100-400 and the pictures could not be told from those made by my 70D.The EF 18-135 stm focuses quite quickly on it. It is well built with a metal body and the kit lens has a metal barrel. The lcd is better than the one on Sony but it does not articulate. I am very comfortable with the Canon operating system as it is the same as the one on the STL and other Rebels. The picture quality is as good as my 7D as it has the same sensor. Before buying I read a few hundred customer reviews from various sources. I always start out reading the really bad reviews first because I want to find the bad points about the product. <br>

The reviewers kind of belied what the pro reviewers said when the camera came out. There were a hell of a lot of people who really liked it. So this camera has its drawbacks and it will never have the capability to mount and evf. I really like it. The picture quality is stunning for such a little camera. It is smaller than the NEX I had. Yes the lcd is affected by sun glare but so was my NEX even with the evf, at least more so, that the optical finders I still use. This is not a rave but neither is it a rant. I am having fun with the little thing. </p>

 

<p>It's not a mixed bag, for me. I like the camera, paid a decent price for it, and get nice results from it too. Not everyone will be able to use it for what they want. On the basis of raw image potential the EOS-M is a great photographic tool. On the basis of AF speed it isn't. Race car photogs may safely pass this one up and apparently have, driving the cost to "can't go wrong at that price" levels.</p>

<p>The biggest issue I had, review-wise, was Ken Rockwell's. I read his review (and the 90ex flash review) while my EOS-M was en-route. I nearly canceled the shipment. I am so glad I didn't! The tiny flash works far better than expected and recharges a lot faster than Ken describes. Maybe the latest camera bios helped, maybe not. </p>

<p>I have started a couple of threads about it, if you have time to check them out. And there are a few shots from it on my flickr page.</p>

<p>Dick,<br>

I just ordered one after a lot of waffling from NEX to Fuji to EOS M and back. I really was sure that I wanted/needed a viewfinder but after borrowing two NEXs (6&7) I found the EVF to not be as wonderful as I hoped it would be. Autofocus with my EF/EFs lenses absolutely sucked on the NEX cameras with a Viltrox adapter, Metabones might be better but I don't see how. I was also a bit disappointed in the image quality with the NEX6, but it could have just been my inexperience with the camera.<br>

Last Friday I borrowed an EOS M with the latest firmware and was blown away at how good the autofocus performed, especially after reading all the negative reviews. It's like the reviewers were using a totally different camera, well, some were I suppose as they reviewed the early firmware version. The nay sayers really should re-review the camera after the firmware upgrade, I bet most would reverse their stand.<br>

Thanks for starting this thread, it'll be interesting how many of us are discovering this little jewel. BTW, there's a great thread over on the Canon forum with some really fine photographs.<br>

JD</p>

 

<p>Joseph. Here were my expenses with the NEX 5N which I thought a good camera. Initial purchase with kit lens 700, EVF (the same as the NEX 6, & 7) 350, 55-210 about 200, 16mm about 200, etc. The cost for the m, body-kit lens-flash-EF adapter, 550. I will not have to buy anything else. I have an ef-s 10-22 and ef-s 40-2.8 among my EF lenses that will work just fine on the M. What I learned in over two years and several thousand pictures with the Sony NEX is that a mirrorless camera is an adjunct to my regular Canon gear. It does not replace it. The other thing I learned that having two basically incompatible systems just makes things more difficult because as you see above one has to replicate focal lengths, learn diverse menus, etc. I photograph a lot of competitive swimming and some moving wildlife. This requires three pound white lenses and a 7D or 70D to capture action. What the NEX did and the m will do is street, head shots, parties, landscapes, and as I have done recently it will fit under my down jacket with the kit lens as I walk cold New England streets. The big difference for me is the ability to use canon lenses, flashes, flash extension cords, and an operating system that is less complex for me than the Sony. I sold the NEX a few months ago and I do miss having something small to take with me all the time. I have been a sometime Canon professional user since 1988 and had to deal with a lot worse gear than the m. I am pleased to have bought it. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The Canon EOS m has been much maligned."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mostly by reviewers and forum warriors who'd rather argue specs and features than take photos. Actual owners of the EOS M tended to like it despite the quirks. Several of my Facebook contacts snagged an EOS M when the price was heavily discounted and they all said it was pretty good overall and the excellent image quality offset any shortcomings.</p>

<p>I was very tempted after seeing some excellent people pix by Stephen and Norman here on photo.net and Carlos Miller on Facebook. But I really need both image stabilization and a tilt screen to get the most use from an APS sensor compact digicam, so I'm probably going to swap some under-utilized gear toward a Fuji X-A1 or X-M1. If the EOS M had a tilt screen I'd probably have snagged one late last year when the prices were really low.</p>

<p>I love the M! <a href=" picture</a> taken with it, on a foggy day.</p>

<p>I love the M. It definitely has a few shortcomings but the compact size is perfect and the image quality is superb!</p>

<p>The 22/2 lens is excellent. The basic IQ is very good. The rear LCD is very, very good. I have no issues with the UI. The AF area is way too big. (having to zoom in on the image to get what you want in focus is a total kludge) The AF, with the update, is slower than some P&S cameras I have. It's a good, small landscape camera. Unless one has Canon lenses they want to use on it, it's an answer to a question that not too many people ask.</p>

<p>After joining another, non-photography-related forum at the weekend I did some still work, photographing briar pipes in a controlled environment using MF. As I found with the Nikon kit lens, that last, infintessimal manual adjustment on focus makes all the difference. I am happy with my purchase. If the AF was as quick as a u4/3 and there was a native 50mm equiv. lens it would be all I'd need. Right now I prefer my u4/3 for Street, but the AF on the kit zoom is up to the task in all but the most demanding environments.<br>

Reviewers have go to say something and they have a hard task, given how much store many people put in the words of dpr etc.<br>

We got lucky with the sale price, but I do hope that Canon continue to refine this format and we see a worldwide release of the M3 at some point in the future. </p>

 

<p>The criticisms for the EOS M were well captured in this video:<br>

<a href="

Mirrorless Party</a><br>

Great overview of the market segment overall. And the end touches on the other strange entry.</p>

<p>That aside, I think the EOS M shows that Canon can go the same way that Sony and Olympus also went: shorter flange distance with adapters supporting legacy lenses. To me, the camera features seem to have been restricted intentionally, so as to not make it competition to entry level DSLRs. Otherwise, I like the overall style. I always liked the style of Canon compact cameras, but not that of their DSLRs - this camera reminds me of the former. I am surprised it had not caught more in the US, at least as a compact DSLR backup.</p>

<p>I have a bunch of Canon FD lenses, and when I found out mirrorless cameras could be adapted to use them, I checked around. The EOS M was more than I wanted to spend at the time, so I picked up a used Samsung NX100 and an adapter. Works fine, but I can't use my stable of EF lenses.<br>

<br />I'm on Canon Canada's e-mail list, and recently when they offered refurbished EOS M cameras complete with the 18-55mm zoom, the 90EX flash and a one year warranty for $279.00, I bought a red one. </p>

<p>I ordered an FD adapter on eBay for around $10.00, and an aftermarket EF one for $53.00. If I would have had to pay $200.00 for the Canon EF adapter, I would not have bought the camera. Got the EF one this week, and it works great with my lenses. So far to me its a great little camera and I'm glad I got it. The Samsung will now be sold off. Love the small size and the fact that it will accept my Canon 270EX and 430EX flashes, infrared remotes, etc. The only thing that spelled "refurbished" was the plain brown box it came in, and the plastic bag with the three CDs had been opened. Can't wait for finer weather to use it more outdoors.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>an aftermarket EF one for $53.00</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An autofocus one? How well does the autofocus work with your EF lenses? I would imagine it should be slower than with the native ones because of the motor difference. Does it feel like it's overworking that motor - that would be my main concern with adapting PDAF lenses to CDAF systems.</p>

<p>The aftermarket EF adapter seems to work fine with my EF lenses and non Canon ones too, my main lens on my DSLR is a Sigma 17-70mm, and I have a Tamron 11-18, both work well. My Canon 75-300mm IS lens also performs as it should. I sort of had a concern with the small EOS M battery being able to work this and other lenses for a while. Haven't had the time nor the weather to give them a good workout. Sort of solved the problem today with the arrival of two additional clone batteries.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sounds good - thanks for the info.</p>

<p>Just got one and I love it so far. With touch controls the interface is remarkably quick to work with once you get used to it. With the 22 f/2 it's smaller than my old Canonet. It's actually pretty similar in size to an old Pen I have kicking around.</p>