M5 or M6 or M50

[TheRogue]

Hi Guys. As subject line - I want something for a bit of general photography and maybe video. I'm usually attracted to price - that being that if its more expensive it must be better. But is this right in this case? There's a significant difference in price between the M5 and M6 and yet the M6 is the later product. And what about the M50? So... any thoughts?

[Tronhard]

---

@TheRogue wrote:

Indeed there is. I currently use a 5D3, 28-70mm 2.8 2, 50mm 1.2 and 70-210mm f2.8 IS.  I am downsizing. I have considered a high quality compact but I've been there before and they always leave me feeling 'wanting'. I thought the M series was a good middle ground.

---

I did the same when I was almost crippled with arthritis in my knee.  Humping about 3kg of camera gear around just wasn't an option for me.  I got the M5 along with the 18-150, the 55-200 and the 11-22mm lenses.  The were reasonably sharp but slow.  I already had an EOS M with the 18-55.

I have had a full knee replacement and can now use my full range of heavy camera gear again but will continue to use the M-gear as the occasion arises.  I carry some kind of camera with me almost all the time, but when I am not going out to photograph I usually take something light, inconspicuous and convenient.

I recommend going to DPREVIEW where you can call up the 3 bodies and put them on a comparison chart.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TheRogue wrote:

Hi Guys. As subject line - I want something for a bit of general photography and maybe video. I'm usually attracted to price - that being that if its more expensive it must be better. But is this right in this case? There's a significant difference in price between the M5 and M6 and yet the M6 is the later product. And what about the M50? So... any thoughts?

---

If price isn't a major consideration (and maybe even if it is), I wouldn't consider buying any mirrorless camera until the rumors of an impending Canon full-frame mirrorless either come to fruition or are put to rest. Such a camera could have the effect of rendering the current members of Canon's mirrorless product line virtually obsolete.

[TheRogue]

Well, I hear this. BUT, if there isnt even a confirmation of a full frame mirroless coming from Canon, let alone a release date, then that makes waiting hard. I'm almost 60 and not getting any yonger!

[kvbarkley]

I am sure it will just add to the current choices. In this case, since size and portability is a concern, any new FF mirrorless will probably not affect that decision very much.

[TheRogue]

I think it has a huge impact on lenses though - where the focal length as stated on M series now, won't then apply to FF. Maybe L series lenses come back into their own again then. And then the subject of downsizing becomes an issue again. Decisions, decisions!

[kvbarkley]

The focal length of a lens is the focal length of a lens, a physical property that has nothing to do with the format.

M series cameras use an APS-C sized sensor, so you need to multiply the focal length by 1.6 to see what the view would be for a FF camera, but that is just a convention.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@kvbarkley wrote:

The focal length of a lens is the focal length of a lens, a physical property that has nothing to do with the format.

M series cameras use an APS-C sized sensor, so you need to multiply the focal length by 1.6 to see what the view would be for a FF camera, but that is just a convention.

---

Very true. But the focal ranges (11-16, 17-55, 50-150, ...) that are most convenient on an APS-C camera are not the ones (16-35, 24-70, 70-200, ...) that are most convenient on a full-frame camera.

[TheRogue]

---

@kvbarkley wrote:

The focal length of a lens is the focal length of a lens, a physical property that has nothing to do with the format.

M series cameras use an APS-C sized sensor, so you need to multiply the focal length by 1.6 to see what the view would be for a FF camera, but that is just a convention.

---

Yes I may have worded my point incorrectly, but the point remains.

[Tronhard]

---

@kvbarkley wrote:

The focal length of a lens is the focal length of a lens, a physical property that has nothing to do with the format.

M series cameras use an APS-C sized sensor, so you need to multiply the focal length by 1.6 to see what the view would be for a FF camera, but that is just a convention.

---

I totally agree about the physical properties of the lens remaining constant. But I don't dismiss it as "just a convention".  In my experience people don't want a specific focal length number they want a Field of View, which the current focal length nomencalture system is not really flexible enough to deal with in anything but the standard 35mm sensor for which it is aligned.

Lenses don't capture images, they simply focus the image to be captured by the sensor, and that ability for the sensor to "see" what is delivered varies the resultant image, which is why we consider equivalence because that expresses, in the end, the image we will get as it changes with sensor size.

So, for example when one looks at the numbers displayed for the EF-S 17-55 lens - one specifically built for the APS-C, a buyer might reasonably think they are getting something that has an angle of view from 17-55, but they won't.  What the sensor will deliver to their card is something around 21-88mm, which is totally different.  Similarly the EF-S15-85 will deliver a FoV equivalent to a FF 24-136mm.

I truly believe that focal length as a metric to give an idea of lens spec is inadequate, they should be described in terms of Field of View and given for both FF and crop sensors they support - that would be more honest to the end result.

[ebiggs1]

"Similarly the EF-S15-85 will deliver a FoV equivalent to a FF 24-136mm."

Here is how I see crop factor.  Only older guys seem to think it has a meaning or need.  Yes, these older guys seem to keep it going passing it to a lot of younger photographers who never knew it existed.  In reality it is a meaningless term invented when 35mm film was king.  The conversion to digital and the newer, small sensor caused people to notice the lenses they commonly used  were giving a different picture. Most new and younger photographers never used and will never use 35mm film. Even today a lot, maybe most new and amateur and even enthusiasts photographers will never use a FF DSLR. Some will of course but at that point I would hope they were knowledgeable and accomplished enough to know FOV is the true factor.

Evidence of this is medium format photographers. They don't rely on a 'crop factor' to know what lens to use.  They have one so they could use it but they don't.  The 35mm crop factor, or a better term “equivalent focal length”, for medium format lenses is around .62x.  A 50mm lens can be a wide angle and a 90mm lens is considered normal.

It is something we fret over way too much.  Just learn what your lens does and how it performs on your camera and don't try to think, geez how would this lens look if I had a FF.