There should be an article about the M6II, the last of the M series.
Tom
February 19, 2017 3:52 am
With the M5 Canon has fulfilled your predictions: i.e. fixed the AF problems, incorporated a high-quality EVF and so created a mirrorless camera that will appeal to serious photographers.
It is evident that for Canon the original EOS M was a vehicle for testing a large sensor in a tiny body and a touch screen operation. It has operational deficiencies as a stand-alone camera, but it makes an excellent digital back for the Visolex/Rhinocam device for making stitched images (6 or 8 @18Mp) at very high resolution with a Medium Format lens from Pentax, Mamiya or Hasselblad.
Tom
November 25, 2015 1:24 pm
I got one as backup for 1-series EOS DSLRs. It is great. The photos are every bit as good as from a full 35mm frame DSLR. The little 22mm lens is amazingly sharp, right into the corners, even wide open. With the firmware upgrade the AF is fine. With a little practice it is easy to alter ISO, aperture and shutter speed. It makes pretty good video too. It is good enough that it has replaced my G12 as my go-everywhere camera. I’d have liked a viewfinder rather than having to use the screen for framing and focussing, but apart from that I have no complaints.
Miguel Tejada-Flores
October 1, 2014 10:23 pm
I’ll chime in late to this thread. I just bought a lightly used EOS-M + the 22mm pancake lens for a very reasonable price – below the recent inexpensive ‘fire-sale’ pricing that finally brought the EOS-M down to reasonable levels – and I must say that, as a standalone and semi-pocketable high-quality camera – it’s an underrated gem. True, the touchscreen-centric controls are quirky and take some getting used to – and true, even with the updated firmware, it’s not the most blazing fast camera when it comes to autofocusing quickly on certain subjects – but its image quality (and for me, IQ is one of the major factors above and beyond all) …. it’s astoundingly great.
In fact – and here I may border on the sacrilegious – it’s so good that it nearly rivals the Ricoh GR and the Nikon Coolpix A, two cameras which currently, even used or discounted, still cost 2 to 3 times as much as the EOS-M + 22mm. In fact – and now I’m really going to get into trouble – with its superb tiny lens with the equivalent of a 35mm FOV – it’s almost a poor man’s Rx1. True, it’s not full-frame – and true, it doesn’t quite have the dynamic range of a few of these other high-end – and pricey – semi-pocketable cameras I’ve just mentioned. BUT…..it comes verrrrrrrrrrrrrry close.
As a potential system camera, I can’t judge it.
But as a walk around, almost pocketable, tiny travel camera – an incredibly high-quality and very small take-with-you-anywhere-any-time kind of a camera ……. it rocks.
Oh, and did I mention the 22mm lens is stupidly, ridiculously and amazingly sharp? And with the f/2 aperture, it works in most lighting conditions. ISO starts getting grainy around 3200 though depending on the look one is going for, that’s not always a negative – especially if you don’t mind the slightly grainy low-light digital-equivalent-of-Tri-X look.
Bottom line – it may not answer everyone’s needs – but for those who want a remarkably quality and tiny camera, it’s up there near the top for me.
Peter42y
February 15, 2014 10:47 am
I bought the EOS-M when its price dropped. I could not have been happier. Often I said to myself that the selling of such awesome camera for such low price should be forbiden. The color accuracy of the camera is pretty good according to imaging resource ( Above the average). The so maligned auto focus works fine , even in low light. The form factor is cool : The camera with the F2 lens is pretty small. The lens is awesome, sharp , and the 35 mm equivalent are pretty awesome for ndoor photography ( I love it). In short : The EOS-M is a gem of a camera. For less than 400 USD or less than 400 euros is a steal. It is cheaper than the Canon S120 and nonetheless does have a sensor several times larger. In low light it does make a huge diference. I hope that the EOS-M line will not follow the Nikon N1 footsteps and simply vanish. The original N1 was meant to be an upgrade of the point and shoot and now Nikon executives claim the N1 public is the cell phone users that want connectivity.
I read your review of the “M” with some interest, as I bought one after the firmware upgrade and drastic price reductions. It is just as you said, with both good and bad features. I usually take this camera when walking, primarily for its light weight and excellent JPEG image quality, knowing there are potentially some photos I will not get. In practice, I have only missed relatively few photos, however.
It’s a lightweight choice, even with a 55-250 lens and adapter, and I can carry it in my backpack and take it everywhere, without getting tired of carrying it. I could take this camera and its standard zoom plus the 55-250 all over Europe next summer and feel assured I would get the photos I wanted, if I have three or four batteries, that is.
Thank you for your excellent review, you called it early on, just as the “M” is, even today. I’m bookmarking your site and will be reading other reviews with interest.
Karl Acton
January 9, 2013 9:58 am
Thank you for that most comprehensive and useful review (much better than the out-of-date one at dpreview.com). I want a good-quality compact camera with a choice of lenses for the times when carrying around the DSLR and L-series lenses up the mountainside or on the street is not an option. However, your review suggests to me that it would be wise to wait a few years for the next Canon model.
Karl, yes, I would wait until Canon releases a better version of the EOS M that addresses its AF issues. I think Canon will launch a higher end M mount mirrorless later this year…
Peter Bendheim
January 8, 2013 5:37 am
Interesting review of the EOS M. It has to be said that the image quality on the EOS M is very good indeed for such a small camera. Sure, it may not be good at sports and action, but it’s very good as a small extra camera for the kind of photography I do. I am a long time Nikon pro user but I happen to like the EOS M quite a bit. The deal breaker on this camera is composing in bright sunlight, however. Its nearly impossible. It’s interesting to me how the focus speed, which is not really bad, especially on touch mode, becomes a measure by which final judgement is cast by so many reviewers. In reviewing the ultra expensive Leica M9, for example, another respected website talked about the frustrations and slowness of the M9. But at the end of all of this, and because it’s a $6000 hand made camera, this is somehow fine as imparts a considered, reflective though-through approach to the experience of contemplative photography. As the reviewers said on this website of the M9 -“It reminds me of the simpler times when we took time to do things like focus”…….hahaha…..So no, no one is going to diss the Leica for anything, not even its monitor, or its focusing speed because that would be tantamount to religious sacrilege. But along comes the tiny, easy to use Canon, with it’s minimalist approach – and I might add with specs (but of course not optics) which are not far off the Leica, and suddenly it’s no good. But the Canon will out focus the Leica every time and probably take better high ISO images too.. Ah, the holy ground of luxury brand hypocrisy..
Peter, as I pointed out in the review, I believe the new M mount from Canon has a very bright future. The Canon EOS M was the first try at a lower-end mirrorless camera. You can imagine what a high-end Canon M camera will be like, with superb optics (the 18-55mm is by far the best consumer lens I have tested so far), large sensor, great ergonomics, etc. I think Canon is preparing this line to eventually replace their basic APS-C DSLR cameras – something I personally think will happen within the next 5+ years.
Yes, AF is a big problem on the EOS M. As noted in the review, I was quite shocked that the camera could not acquire focus in daylight when I was shooting at the Rocky Mountain National Park. Many cameras struggle in low light situations, but somehow Canon screwed up with their “hybrid” AF system, because it does not work well at all even in bright light.
As for Leica cameras, despite all the hype and love from reviewers, I have no interest in them. People say that the Leica is a life changing camera, something you cannot express through words, something you have to feel, blah blah blah. The only thing to like about Leica is their lenses, which are truly excellent. But are they worth the money? Not for me. I just don’t see value in equipment that costs $10K+. The Nikon D800 destroys the Leica in image quality, so I will stick with that if I need to have the best quality. For everything else, these new mirrorless cameras are excellent. Carrying such an expensive camera like Leica, I would not be able to enjoy photography fully, because I would worry too much about scratching it, breaking it or getting it stolen. I feel about the Leica the same way I feel about luxury cars. As the great Dale Carnegie pointed out, a car is not a luxury, but a method of transportation. I feel the same about cameras – they are not a luxury, but a method of taking pictures. And at the end of the day, it is not about the damn camera, it is the person behind it that makes a difference. A tool is a tool, nothing else. That’s where I stand in regards to cameras.
So I guess you could say that I am one of those that will diss Leica for what it is not. Just like I dissed the new Fuji X-Pro1 and the X100 for their terrible AF (before the new firmware came out). By the way, Leica cameras and lenses are all manual focus, so there is no such thing as focus speed…
In summary, I am 100% with you on the luxury brand hypocrisy!
Thanks for the excellent reply. I wanted to say that your reviews are excellent – and written extremely well – grateful for all the effort you put into these reviews.
gianpaolo
January 7, 2013 11:35 am
hi nasim I am a bit tired to carry a D700 + 17-35 2.8, but it seems the perfect combination for me. do you think that we will see soon a possible, much lighter alternative, with same IQ, ISO etc? this canon does not seem very promising to me… maybe the X-E1 with promised wide angle zoom? happy new year.
Ray Hainsworth
January 6, 2013 7:26 am
Interesting, balanced and complete review as usual. I’m curious though why you chose to not include the Fuji X series in your mirrorless comparison series. Seems like a major oversight.
There should be an article about the M6II, the last of the M series.
With the M5 Canon has fulfilled your predictions: i.e. fixed the AF problems, incorporated a high-quality EVF and so created a mirrorless camera that will appeal to serious photographers.
It is evident that for Canon the original EOS M was a vehicle for testing a large sensor in a tiny body and a touch screen operation. It has operational deficiencies as a stand-alone camera, but it makes an excellent digital back for the Visolex/Rhinocam device for making stitched images (6 or 8 @18Mp) at very high resolution with a Medium Format lens from Pentax, Mamiya or Hasselblad.
I got one as backup for 1-series EOS DSLRs. It is great. The photos are every bit as good as from a full 35mm frame DSLR. The little 22mm lens is amazingly sharp, right into the corners, even wide open. With the firmware upgrade the AF is fine. With a little practice it is easy to alter ISO, aperture and shutter speed. It makes pretty good video too. It is good enough that it has replaced my G12 as my go-everywhere camera. I’d have liked a viewfinder rather than having to use the screen for framing and focussing, but apart from that I have no complaints.
I’ll chime in late to this thread. I just bought a lightly used EOS-M + the 22mm pancake lens for a very reasonable price – below the recent inexpensive ‘fire-sale’ pricing that finally brought the EOS-M down to reasonable levels – and I must say that, as a standalone and semi-pocketable high-quality camera – it’s an underrated gem. True, the touchscreen-centric controls are quirky and take some getting used to – and true, even with the updated firmware, it’s not the most blazing fast camera when it comes to autofocusing quickly on certain subjects – but its image quality (and for me, IQ is one of the major factors above and beyond all) …. it’s astoundingly great.
In fact – and here I may border on the sacrilegious – it’s so good that it nearly rivals the Ricoh GR and the Nikon Coolpix A, two cameras which currently, even used or discounted, still cost 2 to 3 times as much as the EOS-M + 22mm. In fact – and now I’m really going to get into trouble – with its superb tiny lens with the equivalent of a 35mm FOV – it’s almost a poor man’s Rx1. True, it’s not full-frame – and true, it doesn’t quite have the dynamic range of a few of these other high-end – and pricey – semi-pocketable cameras I’ve just mentioned. BUT…..it comes verrrrrrrrrrrrrry close.
As a potential system camera, I can’t judge it.
But as a walk around, almost pocketable, tiny travel camera – an incredibly high-quality and very small take-with-you-anywhere-any-time kind of a camera ……. it rocks.
Oh, and did I mention the 22mm lens is stupidly, ridiculously and amazingly sharp? And with the f/2 aperture, it works in most lighting conditions. ISO starts getting grainy around 3200 though depending on the look one is going for, that’s not always a negative – especially if you don’t mind the slightly grainy low-light digital-equivalent-of-Tri-X look.
Bottom line – it may not answer everyone’s needs – but for those who want a remarkably quality and tiny camera, it’s up there near the top for me.
I bought the EOS-M when its price dropped. I could not have been happier. Often I said to myself that the selling of such awesome camera for such low price should be forbiden.
The color accuracy of the camera is pretty good according to imaging resource ( Above the average).
The so maligned auto focus works fine , even in low light.
The form factor is cool : The camera with the F2 lens is pretty small.
The lens is awesome, sharp , and the 35 mm equivalent are pretty awesome for ndoor photography ( I love it).
In short : The EOS-M is a gem of a camera.
For less than 400 USD or less than 400 euros is a steal. It is cheaper than the Canon S120 and nonetheless does have a sensor several times larger.
In low light it does make a huge diference.
I hope that the EOS-M line will not follow the Nikon N1 footsteps and simply vanish.
The original N1 was meant to be an upgrade of the point and shoot and now Nikon executives claim the N1 public is the cell phone users that want connectivity.
www.imaging-resource.com/news/…s-an-aberr
I read your review of the “M” with some interest, as I bought one after the firmware upgrade and drastic price reductions. It is just as you said, with both good and bad features. I usually take this camera when walking, primarily for its light weight and excellent JPEG image quality, knowing there are potentially some photos I will not get. In practice, I have only missed relatively few photos, however.
It’s a lightweight choice, even with a 55-250 lens and adapter, and I can carry it in my backpack and take it everywhere, without getting tired of carrying it. I could take this camera and its standard zoom plus the 55-250 all over Europe next summer and feel assured I would get the photos I wanted, if I have three or four batteries, that is.
Thank you for your excellent review, you called it early on, just as the “M” is, even today. I’m bookmarking your site and will be reading other reviews with interest.
Thank you for that most comprehensive and useful review (much better than the out-of-date one at dpreview.com). I want a good-quality compact camera with a choice of lenses for the times when carrying around the DSLR and L-series lenses up the mountainside or on the street is not an option. However, your review suggests to me that it would be wise to wait a few years for the next Canon model.
Karl, yes, I would wait until Canon releases a better version of the EOS M that addresses its AF issues. I think Canon will launch a higher end M mount mirrorless later this year…
Interesting review of the EOS M. It has to be said that the image quality on the EOS M is very good indeed for such a small camera. Sure, it may not be good at sports and action, but it’s very good as a small extra camera for the kind of photography I do. I am a long time Nikon pro user but I happen to like the EOS M quite a bit. The deal breaker on this camera is composing in bright sunlight, however. Its nearly impossible.
It’s interesting to me how the focus speed, which is not really bad, especially on touch mode, becomes a measure by which final judgement is cast by so many reviewers.
In reviewing the ultra expensive Leica M9, for example, another respected website talked about the frustrations and slowness of the M9. But at the end of all of this, and because it’s a $6000 hand made camera, this is somehow fine as imparts a considered, reflective though-through approach to the experience of contemplative photography. As the reviewers said on this website of the M9 -“It reminds me of the simpler times when we took time to do things like focus”…….hahaha…..So no, no one is going to diss the Leica for anything, not even its monitor, or its focusing speed because that would be tantamount to religious sacrilege.
But along comes the tiny, easy to use Canon, with it’s minimalist approach – and I might add with specs (but of course not optics) which are not far off the Leica, and suddenly it’s no good. But the Canon will out focus the Leica every time and probably take better high ISO images too..
Ah, the holy ground of luxury brand hypocrisy..
Peter, as I pointed out in the review, I believe the new M mount from Canon has a very bright future. The Canon EOS M was the first try at a lower-end mirrorless camera. You can imagine what a high-end Canon M camera will be like, with superb optics (the 18-55mm is by far the best consumer lens I have tested so far), large sensor, great ergonomics, etc. I think Canon is preparing this line to eventually replace their basic APS-C DSLR cameras – something I personally think will happen within the next 5+ years.
Yes, AF is a big problem on the EOS M. As noted in the review, I was quite shocked that the camera could not acquire focus in daylight when I was shooting at the Rocky Mountain National Park. Many cameras struggle in low light situations, but somehow Canon screwed up with their “hybrid” AF system, because it does not work well at all even in bright light.
As for Leica cameras, despite all the hype and love from reviewers, I have no interest in them. People say that the Leica is a life changing camera, something you cannot express through words, something you have to feel, blah blah blah. The only thing to like about Leica is their lenses, which are truly excellent. But are they worth the money? Not for me. I just don’t see value in equipment that costs $10K+. The Nikon D800 destroys the Leica in image quality, so I will stick with that if I need to have the best quality. For everything else, these new mirrorless cameras are excellent. Carrying such an expensive camera like Leica, I would not be able to enjoy photography fully, because I would worry too much about scratching it, breaking it or getting it stolen. I feel about the Leica the same way I feel about luxury cars. As the great Dale Carnegie pointed out, a car is not a luxury, but a method of transportation. I feel the same about cameras – they are not a luxury, but a method of taking pictures. And at the end of the day, it is not about the damn camera, it is the person behind it that makes a difference. A tool is a tool, nothing else. That’s where I stand in regards to cameras.
So I guess you could say that I am one of those that will diss Leica for what it is not. Just like I dissed the new Fuji X-Pro1 and the X100 for their terrible AF (before the new firmware came out). By the way, Leica cameras and lenses are all manual focus, so there is no such thing as focus speed…
In summary, I am 100% with you on the luxury brand hypocrisy!
Thanks for the excellent reply. I wanted to say that your reviews are excellent – and written extremely well – grateful for all the effort you put into these reviews.
hi nasim
I am a bit tired to carry a D700 + 17-35 2.8, but it seems the perfect combination for me.
do you think that we will see soon a possible, much lighter alternative, with same IQ, ISO etc?
this canon does not seem very promising to me…
maybe the X-E1 with promised wide angle zoom?
happy new year.
Interesting, balanced and complete review as usual. I’m curious though why you chose to not include the Fuji X series in your mirrorless comparison series. Seems like a major oversight.