Has the M-Series Arrived?

[Busted Knuckles]

I thought the M5 feature list would make a great 6DII... without a mirror....

All I can say, is that there are options in the $1000 to $2000 range that have features that would blow the mind of anyone in the market for a 20D, or even a 50D.

If you can limit the size of the sensor to APC (50D) and are willing to trade off to the MF4/3 both Pany/Oly offerings are just chuck long in features (who knows if all of them are useful).

Here is a wild statement, if the M5 had 4k video there would already be one on my desk, with the two kit lenses and my 5dIII donated to a local highschool or something. Particularly if Canon would reverse tele an adapter ala metabones. As an enthusiast that would give me all that I could imagine.

[HDNitehawk]

If it came out with 4k video I doubt I would have found one in stock at B&H. With the digital image stabilization maybe it will be a very good video camera. DSLR's AF for video has improved in recent models, but shooting handheld video is still a pain.

[HDNitehawk]

It arrived and the battery is charging. The manual is about the same size of the camera and so far positive on the initial unpacking.

What about adapters. Is the Canon version really worth $140 more than this one?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...apter_for.html

[Sean Setters]

It arrived and the battery is charging. The manual is about the same size of the camera and so far positive on the initial unpacking.

What about adapters. Is the Canon version really worth $140 more than this one?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...apter_for.html

Good question. If it were me, I'd get the Vello adapter simply because I wouldn't plan on using it *that* much, so the very slight amount of play in the fit is something I could live with. And think of it this way; if the Vello one works, you've saved a bundle over the Canon version. If it doesn't work out, then you can return it and get the Canon one instead.

[HDNitehawk]

With a tele M I guess I wouldn't need adapter that often, only if I want to use it on the 500mm. Video that might happen, I ordered the Vello.

I also ordered the 55 x 200mm.
Anyone know if there is any other benefit of having the new 18 x 150mm rather than the 55 x 200mm? Image quality? Video?
Will the 55 x 200mm work with the digital IS and video?

Other than the obvious which the 18 x 150mm will arguably give you a more usable every day focal range.
The two are almost the exact same dimensions, the 55-200mm is over an ounce lighter. The 18-150mm gives you .5 stop IS advantage.

FYI the 55 x 200mm is on the way.

[Kayaker72]

I haven't yet found what I would call a reputable review of the EFM 18-150. I have seen a couple of videos from people I am not familiar with and the IQ does look pretty good. Most of my interest actually comes from the MTF chart:

What I see is pretty impressive. Starting at 90% transmittance wide open both at 18 mm and 150 mm, but getting into rarefied air by f/8 (I am assuming the light blue line is hidden by the thicker lines above). Not only at the center, but the theoretical transmittance is pretty even across the frame.

Compare that to the EFm 18-55, which is my current main lens on my M1 (and I am happy with)

The EFm 18-150 is just better. Period. Across the board.

Compared tot he EFm 55-200:

Again, I would take the EFm 18-150. The 55-200 isn't awful, but edge of from is going to have issues and even at the center of frame, f/8 is at ~90%.

But, the EFm 11-22 still reigns:

For a small UWA lens, no wonder Bryan's tests came out like they did.

Anyway, the MTF has me very interested in the EFm 18-150. We will see, but if I choose to keep my M kit, I could see swapping out the EFm 18-55 for it.

[HDNitehawk]

I charged the battery and put a card in the camera last night and left it for the wife to find. She sent me a message and told me how much she loved it, it was smaller and more compact than the t4i and she knew she was going to like it. I should mention she didn't know how to turn it on and she just left it on the table all night. What she sees as value in the camera isn't the same as our view.

Swapping the 18-55mm for the 18-150mm seems to lose sight of the main positive, the small size of the camera. On trips the wife occasional wants a longer focal length lens, not often but the subject always comes up on trips.

[Busted Knuckles]

Some thoughts on the M series and mirrorless. Not trying to jack the thread, and it will come round tuit again - the M series that is.

HD - interesting real world handling issues that you have surfaced.

I have said a couple of times the basic functionality of the M5 on FF would be a great 6DII (mirrorless too). Same MP count, still oriented to lower light efforts. 4k would make it a gang buster for enthusiast vids.

Other than some minor expense - I guess it doesn't come up that often - why wouldn't the man'f make a 'lens change shutter' such that the sensor would not be open to the elements when changing a lens.

I am in the middle of a full on system re-eval. I get 14 bit color depth and DR - though I have never really printed to that depth - 8 bit only and my two 4k SUHD TVs only have 10 bit and that is pretty cool. I can't really understand what the leap to 14 would yield - better but how much? I have no experience for context.

As 4k and 10 bit - I watched a 4k 10bit video over the holidays - WOW! simply WOW! having said this, a few minutes into it, I was focused on the plot not the IQ. But really noticed the IQ first several minutes of the vid.

So when looking at the options for a full on system replace for the mirrorless/ or even smallish size as a 1st filter - $$ is in 2nd but as long as it is below 5k total change out costs (rules out Leica). The Pany, Oly, Sony, options are just so darn feature rich, and 99.999999% of image viewing will be on a screen converting 14 bit to 10 bit will last me quite awhile - even Dell's 8k monitor is 10bit. The unavoidable collision is the diffraction f stop that starts to degrade image quality of MF to FF due to pixel size.

So in conclusion,
I am holding on for a couple more months hoping that Canon makes an announcement that moves the "M" series into the competitive feature set. They may be aimed a bit higher on the pro/enthusiast pixel peeping, diffraction unlimited, continuum than where I think I am settling.

[Kayaker72]

She sent me a message and told me how much she loved it, it was smaller and more compact than the t4i and she knew she was going to like it.

That is great. I am glad she is happy. I do think the visceral part of photography is understated. So if she can pick it up and it just feels right to her, that is great.

Swapping the 18-55mm for the 18-150mm seems to lose sight of the main positive, the small size of the camera.

For the best IQ, I will always pack my 5DIII and some assortment of lenses. That will be most of the time. But, for times when I want smaller/lighter/less valuable, I will pack something else. So, for me, three parameters come into play: IQ, size/weight, and utility. It becomes trade offs between the three as soon as I move off the 5DIII kit. The camera in my iPhone is the lower rung for IQ, but as I already am carrying it, it is the best on size/weight. Utility is pretty low as well.

For a quick example, I currently use the M1 almost exclusively with the EFm 18-55. But, if I am going to use the M1 in that way, I might as well have a G"X"x (G9x or G7x) which have a much better form factor (size/weight), pretty good IQ, and slightly more "utility" over the M1/EFm 18-55 combo as the powershots actually cover a wider focal length range, have wider aperture lenses and a few other features such as Wi-Fi, etc.

For me, to own the "M" kit, which should have slightly better IQ, but they need to provide more "utility" over a G"X"x P&S cameras to offset the advantage in size/weight. Thus, if I am going to own a "M" kit, I am deciding that I need focal length ranges outside the 24-100 mm range of the G7x II, otherwise I should just own the G7x II. Thus, my recent pick up of the EFm 11-22 and 18-150 mm (which is only 1" longer than the 18-55). Other utility would likely be the faster AF of the DPAF of the M5 and the 28 mm macro lens.

What I think I am settling in on, for myself, is to augment my current M kit, and pick up a G"X"x P&S. Own both for a year and then sell off whatever I do not use much. As to which G"X"x body, I am likely heading into a store to handle the different options.

Also, on the trade offs, M1 is 4.3" x 2.6" x 1.2" or 13.4 in3. The M5 is 4.6" x 3.5" x 2.4" or 38.6 in3. Size/weight vs IQ vs utility. If I decide to keep my M system, I will likely upgrade to the M5 eventually for DPAF, etc. But it is yet another trade off.

As for the IQ of the Gx point and shoot vs the M system, they really aren't far behind (assuming 80D and M5 have similar if not identical sensors):

[Kayaker72]

I was thinking about this a bit more and looking at Canon's naming strategy, I am also thinking that this is the first look at the future line up:

dSLRs:
1Dx, 5D, 6D, 7D.

I also wonder if the 80D will eventually slide in as the 9D or 10D??? The future of the Rebels, IMO, is in doubt. Maybe Canon have one as the 100D, but I am wondering if they will target that market segment with mirrorless.

Mirrorless ILCs:
M1x, M5, M10.

Officially, what many call the M1 was actually the "EOS-M", so Canon could come back and introduce an upscale, potentially FF mirrorless, and call it the M1, but I suspect they will call it the "M1x" as they seem to love adding "X" to things. I had been wondering why they skipped the "M4" and added the "M10," but it makes a lot of sense if they are setting up this future naming scheme for a lineup of cameras. So introduce an M1x and others depending on how sales go.

High End P&S:
G1x, G3x, G5x, G7x, G9x