cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

M5 or M6 or M50

TheRogue
Enthusiast

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?

36 REPLIES 36


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"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.


Er ... come down off your high horse, Ernie. As (probably) the oldest person in this forum, I can't let your demeaning of "these older guys" pass. Surely you'll recall that I've always regarded the "crop factor" as largely BS. My position has been that one should simply learn how lenses behave on the camera one is using (a 50mm lens is a mild telephoto on an APS-C camera, etc., etc.) and ignore how they behave on a camera of some other form factor - thus avoiding the confusing "equivalency" calculation. (And that despite the fact that I was a math major in college, BTW.)

 

The one case where you do need to consider equivalency is if you commonly use two cameras, one of which is APS-C and the other FF (as I did for three or four years). You do the calculation once per shoot, just to ensure that you aren't leaving an unacceptable gap between the zoom ranges of the two cameras.

 

Are there still any medium format photographers around? I thought they'd pretty much faded away as the resolution of FF cameras continued to increase. Come to think of it, what is "out there" these days? Is there such a thing as a large format digital camera? A digital view camera, maybe?

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

"As (probably) the oldest person in this forum, I can't let your demeaning of "these older guys" pass."

 

You are not one of the "older" guys I was referring to, so rest easy, there Robert. Smiley Wink

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

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

 

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.

 


EB You know I have great respect for you as a photographer and contributer but I am disappointed that you make such a sweeping statement connecting age to the issue of equivalence, and I just don't accept your premise that it is really a leftover from the days of film and has no relevence to the digital era.

 

This issue really only came more to the surface for me with digital.  In my film days I had shot 35mm exclusively so the number on the lens was the focal range I expected to use.  The fact that 35mm is no longer "king" but co-exists with the APS-C format, and sharing lenses between the two is the issue.   I don't know how many times I have had people in my classes say that they bought (for example) a 10-22mm lens and it didn't give them the field of view they were expecting on their APS-C body, especially if a similar lens was observed on a FF body and that is what they expected to get.

 

So the issue certainly IS a hangover from the film days when the convention to specify lenses for 35mm was established, and although (I will say it YET again) the physical characteristics of the lens don't change, what is delivered as the end product IS.   And frankly I firmly believe that is what is most important.    I think the concept of focal length in this situation is counter-productive, hence my preference for something that describes magnification and/or Field of View. As I said before a photo isn't taken by a lens alone, it is the combination of a lens with a sensor to capture what the lens delivers.

 

I think it is perfectly valid to call the APS-C sensor a "crop sensor" because if you affirm that the lens has unchanged physical properties of aperture and focal length, what is delivered to the sensor plane at a given distance would be the same, but the sensor "crops" that because it is so small.   That is particularly valid for an EF lens on an APS-C body.  The lens is unchanged but the resultant image IS: it IS cropped by the limitations of the physical size of the sensor - this can easily be demonstrated by taking an image, using the same lens with the same settings on a FF and an APS-C camera.  If the print from the FF unit is cropped to 0.625 of its dimensions (the inverse of 1.6) you will get the an image same FoV as the crop sensor captured.

 

For reference see this Article on Crop Factor and FF Sensors


cheers, TREVOR

"All the variety, all the charm, all the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris

Trevor, my friend, we all are different and all of us have different points of view. Let me try to clarify mine so you won't think so poorly of me. When I did my DSLR 101 classes for Park and Rec, the single most confusing thing was crop factor. As long as no one told or mentioned the term crop factor all was well. Younger folks don't know.  Eventually it gets out. They read about it or somebody tells them about it but they find out. New people know two things, a cell phone and they just bought a new Rebel or D3200. They know nothing about 35mm film and as far as they are concerned their cropper camera is FF. It produces exactly what they see in the VF or LCD panel. They have no need of or to understand crop factor. As far as newbies are concerned the 18-55mm is a pretty normal acting lens that is right for what they require. Then some wise guy says you know that lens is really acting like a 28 to 88 lens not like an 18-55 like it says. It's just not something that is needed to further complicate photography.

 

" In my film days I had shot 35mm exclusively ..."

 

So see, you know that lenses didn't act like what you were used to so in order for you to understand what is happening you invent a term for it and crop factor is born. Some people never shot 35mm film and couldn't care less.  It is a generation thing, nothing more.  Crop factor exists to translate equivalent FL so that old, right I said older,  Smiley Happy 35mm photographers can figure out the FOV of a lens based on the equivalent focal length when using lenses on sensors smaller than 35mm film.  Not all photographer are in that class.

 

"The lens is unchanged but the resultant image IS:..."

 

 Nothing is actually cropped. A round lens produces a circular image circle. It does not produce a rectangular image. The sensor, or 35 film for my older friends, in the camera captures a rectangular portion of that image circle. You can certainly crop an image after it is made by the camera but nothing is cropped by the camera.  In that  sense all cameras are FF.

 

Not quite as disappointed, I hope.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

A healthy debate is a good thing, it makes us clarify our thoughts! Smiley Very Happy  So all good!

 

I think this about semantics rather than physics. I am used to the convention that an APS-C sensor is a crop sensor because lens specs are aligned to the size of a FF one. I completely agree that a rectanglular sensor is going to be a crop of a circle, but I am aware of only one camera design that attempted to use a circular recording medium.


So RELATIVELY speaking an APS-C sensor is a reduced sized version of a FF one, and that is what is referred to in publications under that heading from which I take my reference. My point is that APS-C sensors with FF lenses attached were not an issue in the days of film (to my knowledge), but they are in the digital world.

 

Anyway, it is what it is and life will go on and we will still enjoy the process of taking photos and debating the merits of technology, terminology and technique!  What else can one do when we aren't out there taking pictures.


cheers, TREVOR

"All the variety, all the charm, all the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris

Crop Factor, or Angle of View?  I think associating crop factor with a camera body is the lesser of all evils.  I say keep defining it the way we have done it for years.

 

Lenses have neither a crop factor or an angle of view.  Lenses only have a magnification factor..  Crop factor and angle of view are two sides of the same coin.  Crop factor is commonly associated with the camera body, while AOV is commonly associated with the lens.  

 

Both descriptions are attempts to describe the same thing, and neither of which actually applies to a lens or an image sensor.. It is not until we pair a lens with a camera body that these descriptions begin make sense.  So, which description is better to use, CF or AOV?

 

I say CF is better to use, even with all of the confusion that it may create.  If we assign an AOV to a lens, then a lens can have at least two AOV specifications, which would be FAR more confusing than assigning a CF to camera body.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

To me it seems the confusion is being powered by marketing and labeling policies of the company.
The Powershot G series, included the good G3X I used, for example had only 24-600mm printed on the barrell, which was the equivalent of the optic on a full frame.
On Aps-C based sensor series instead, either EF-S and EF-M lenses are reporting the effective length.

The ideal should be to have either the physical length and the equivalent, like I remember it was on some legacy compact zoom film camera with fix lens built around 90's, eventually at least among the same brand , Canon, it would be great to have the same labeling criteria for optics.

"I wouldn't consider buying any mirrorless camera until the rumors ................."

 

 

Period!  Certainly not from a 5 series. Smiley Sad

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"I wouldn't consider buying any mirrorless camera until the rumors ................."

 

 

Period!  Certainly not from a 5 series. Smiley Sad


I'm talking seriously of downsizing. My FF kit doesnt get anywhere near the use it should. I've had the 5d3 about 2 yrs and although I don;t know exaclty the click count - I'd be surpised if its more than 5k.

amfoto1
Authority

The M5, M6 or M50 are all 24MP, APS-C mirrorless cameras using EF-M mount lenses...

 

The M5 might be considered the most "pro-oriented", Canon's first mirrorless model to have a built-in electronic viewfinder and fairly direct access to major camera functions via assorted dials and buttons. It's also the earliest of these three, intro'd in mid 2016, using a Digic 7 processor and generating CR2 raw files.

 

The M6 came slightly later, in early 2017, but is much the same camera, except it doesn't have a built in viewfinder and doesn't have as many direct controls (would mean more "menu diving" to set things up). Canon offered a couple accessory viewfinders for use with earlier M-series.... I don't know if they work with the M6. (Those viewfinders also sit in the hot shoe, so when using them, I suppose you wouldn't also be able to use an accessory flash.)

 

The M50 is the most recently announced, is Canon's second model to feature an electronic viewfinder, and the first of the M-series to use the new Digic 8 processor. It's also the first of this series to offer 4K video and has enhanced connectivity features. Other than those features, the M50might be considered positioned below the M5 in the line-up, doesn't have as much direct access to camera controls. I seem to recall it's also the first to use a new "CR3" raw file format.

 

FYI, there's also currently the M100, which was intro'd before the M50 and is the most "entry level" and lowest priced of the current line-up. It doesn't have a viewfinder or any means of adding an accessory one (it has no hot shoe, so I suppose also cannot be used with an accessory flash).

 

All the models use the Dual Pixel AF system (DPAF), which embeds a number of pairs of AF sensor pixels in the image sensor itself, to provide phase detection auto focus that's a big improvement over the contrast detection focus method used on the earlier models. (DPAF was first introduced on the 70D, if I recall correctly, for use in Live View. It's now found on nearly all the current DSLRs, too.) I seem to recall that the M5, M6 and M100 have something like 40 AF points (pairs of pixels, I guess). While the M50 has increased that to around 120 AF points. A neat thing about the M5 is that you can set up the Touch Screen for AF point selection, even limiting it to one corner of the screen (so you don't "select" AF points when your nose touches the screen!) That's sort of like a "virtual joystick" (like the joysticks used for AF point selection on the more advanced DSLRs).  I don't know for certain, but imagine the other models are similar.

 

Of them all, the M5 is the one I'm most likely to consider... for it's controls AND because some of the newer models are not supported by the post-processing software I use most. I'd rather not have to update my software any further (Lightroom 6 and Photoshop CS6), and some of the models would necessitate that. But I know I can use that with it and the M5's layout and design is closest to what I'd want, anyway.

 

I wish the M5 could be fitted with a battery/vertical grip. One of my concerns with any mirrorless is that most use smaller batteries.... plus they're hard on them. They are CIPA rated for under 300 shots per charge (my 7DII are are rated for 670, but with a battery grip, dual batteries and some simple power saving measures I regularly get 2500+ shots per charge). An electronic viewfinder is blank unless it's powered up.... drawing on the batteries. Those that don't have a viewfinder rely upon "Live  View" on the rear screen, which also draws a lot of battery power. Plus they use a small LP-E17 battery with about 1100 mAh capacity (versus the larger LP-E6N with close to 1900 mAh each, used in my DSLRs). Putting a battery grip on a compact mirrorless camera might seem counter-intuitive, but if it were available I'd do it for the vertical controls, as well as the add'l shots between charges. See Fujifilm XH1 and XT2 battery grip arrangements, for example. (I also wish those grips... and tripod feet on the lenses with tripod rings, the way Tamron is doing.... had a built in Arca-Swiss dovetail. Fuji also makes grips without batteries, but with A-S dovetail for XT10, XT20 and XT2.)

 

The biggest concern might be the lens selection. There simply aren't a lot available for the M-series cameras... seven or eight Canon EF-M, I think. Most are zooms, too... few have very large apertures... and all are STM autofocus drive. So far there are few third party autofocus lenses for M-series yet, either.

 

But I'm more interested in using the camera for manual focus lenses... and there some interesting options available for those. It's also possible to adapt and use a lot of vintage rangefinder and SLR lenses on the M-series cameras. I have a number of those in my camera collection that I'd love to be able to shoot digital with. Thanks to their electronic viewfinder, these cameras have "focus peaking" to aid with manual focusing.

 

The EVF also can be helpful in low light conditions, where an optical  viewfinder would be too dim.  And an EVF can give a form of "exposure simulation", which can be great for things like street photography.... simply use the projected image to adjust settings without having to move the camera from your eye. A "real time" histogram might be neat, but this is close and a lot more practical.

 

I know Canon and Nikon are scrambling to develop full frame mirrorless cameras, too, in order to compete with Sony who have pretty much had that market niche to themselves for several years (well, okay, Leica makes some FF mirrorless, too). While it will be interesting to see what they do with those, personally I'm more interested in the smaller APS-C format cameras as a compact, lightweight, unobtrusive camera for candid portraits, street photography, travel and similar. At least for now I'll continue using my APS-C DSLRs for sports/action/wildlife and my full frame DSLR for landscape, architecture, etc.

 

Mirrorless have their pluses and their minuses. For example, an electronic shutter can operate silently (any  sound might be up to the user... I want a camera that moos or quacks! Smiley Very Happy) and has the potential to achieve faster shutter speeds fairly easily. Some MILC already have 1/16000 and 1/32000 (that's about the upper limit right now, though, due to sensor tech and the "rolling shutter effect"). But at the same time, there's no electro-mechanical shutter or mirror "protecting" the sensor, plus the shorter lens register (around 18mm versus 44mm with DSLRs) puts the sensor pretty far forward and susceptible.

 

While I expect the full frame mirrorless that Canon and Nikon will come up with will be superb cameras, I'm also concerned about yet another lens system. Early ads from Nikon appear to show something different from their F-mount.... larger diameter and with four bayonet lugs rather than three. But they've struggled to deal with AF, VR and electronically controlled apertures, while trying to maintain backward compatibility with their 1959 mount. Canon's switch to the EF mount around 1990 eliminated those problems.

 

But we already have three different Canon lens mounts: EF, EF-S and EF-M. If a fourth is created just for the full frame MILC, how long will it be until a series of lenses are developed for use on the cameras? It's taken five years for 7 or 8 EF-M to come available. Sure, we will probably be able to adapt EF lenses.... but I wonder if that couldn't be avoided simply by Canon making their FF mirroless EF lens compatible.

 

After all, while APS-C mirrorless and the lenses for them can be very compact, there's nowhere near the same size/weight savings with lenses for full frame MILC. Compare a Sony E-mount full frame capable 24-70mm f/2.8 or 70-200mm f/2.8 or 100-400mm with comparable Canon EF.... they're virtually the same size and weight!

 

I've seen some Sony shooters using their cameras with adapted Canon L-series/EF lenses... and the small/light camera behind a rather bulky lens just looks pretty awkward and unbalanced (in fact, one of the reasons I use vertical/battery grips on all my DSLRs is to add mass to the camera for better balance with some of the larger lenses I use). So, to me it would make the most sense for Canon's new mirrorless to simply use the existing EF lens series, with the same mount and lens register.  That would make the cameras immediately usable with about 60 existing lenses... a fully developed and comprehensive system, and far more selection than offered by any other mirrorless system... rather than having to wait years for native lenses to be developed for the camera. Besides some minor savings of size/weight that a full frame MILC might bring, there are enough other advantages to mirrorless to make them well worthwhile.

 

While I'm sure there will be a FF Canon mirrorless in the future, I wouldn't wait for it. And I don't for a minute think that a full frame Canon mirrorless will ever make APS-C MILC "obsolete". Even now, FF DSLRs are actually a relatively small part of the marketplace, while APS-C make up the bulk of what people buy and use.

 

***********


Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7DII (x2), 7D(x2) some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & ZENFOLIO 

Announcements