My God.
TheEmrys wrote:The M5’s EVF is fine — the refresh rate is good enough that motion looks smooth and realistic — but the 2.36 million dot screen doesn’t look quite as fantastic as the ones you find on Sony and Fujifilm cameras.
So it's fine, then?
TheEmrys wrote:The M5’s cheap build would almost be forgivable if it weren’t for the fact that, when the shutter fires, the entire camera body rattles.
Cheap build -> used lightweight materials.
TheEmrys wrote:The M5 is like a loud friend that you have to make excuses for — in some situations, you’ll be better off bringing someone else to the party.
Okay, and?
TheEmrys wrote:the EVF is slow to respond to the presence or absence of your eye. Image playback is also slow, which leads to a lot of mistaken button tapping and waiting around.
Haven't seen this- maybe they used a slow SD card? I don't use slow SD cards, and never recommend them. Fast, large ones are just too cheap.
TheEmrys wrote:The continuous autofocus (and the object tracking) can be easily fooled if an object is running directly toward you.
There's a requirement for tracking subjects running toward the camera here?
TheEmrys wrote:Inexplicably, the Auto ISO behavior on the EOS M5 has been crippled
For most users, the autofocus and general performance on the EOS M5 will be more than good enough, but it has a few quirks that keep it from being the best mirrorless option in its class for shooting fast action.
We're talking to a new photographer here, so more than good enough for most isn't good enough?
TheEmrys wrote:Imaging Resource: Low light autofocus is an area of weakness for the M5. It is rated to work from -1 EV to 18 EV, which is okay, but not great. However, many of the EF-M lenses are moderately slow with narrower apertures, which hurts low-light autofocus performance. I regularly struggled to capture in-focus shots in moderately low light. Compared to other similarly-priced mirrorless cameras I've tested, the M5 felt slower in dim conditions.
We have a requirement for fast low-light autofocus? And how much slower is 'slower'? Would you purposefully use a slow lens for low-light work?
TheEmrys wrote:JPEG images were a bit soft at default in-camera sharpening but still showed some sharpening artifacts. The camera exhibited minor to moderate loss in detail due to in-camera noise reduction, even at low ISO settings.
JPEG images out of camera are
always a matter of taste. If you don't like what the camera puts out, change it, or better yet, edit your own freaking RAWs. Canon provides free software with the camera that handles RAW editing very well.
TheEmrys wrote:Then there are the lenses..... All slow. The kit lens is prone to more CA than Sony's (how is that even possible? That is one of Sony's worst for CA). There is one f/2 lens and then a bunch of very slow zooms, like the 15-45/3.5-6.3(!!!) and 18-55/3.5-5.6. Not one constant aperture zoom, which is vital to video.
Sony's lenses are slow. That's the most comparable system, but you can also adapt the fastest AF lenses made to the EOS-M5, natively, if you need to. Want to rent a 50/1.2L had shoot video? With the M5, you can! With Sony? Good luck with that adapter
. (and drop down to MicroFourThirds, now you're at half the sensor size and much higher noise at higher ISOs, so that f/1.2 aperture won't help nearly as much,
if the camera can even hold focus with that little depth of field...)
TheEmrys wrote:The m5 is certainly Canon's best effort. But its nowhere near "close to perfect." Its a decent body that is at the same place or behind every other mirrorless manufacturer in everything.
I never said the EOS-M5 was 'close to perfect'. Please go back and look.
What I
have said is:
Airmantharp wrote:Given that solid video AF in a mirrorless package is listed as a priority, I put Canon's offerings first, because their tech doesn't miss. It's not good, or really good, it's as close to perfect as you can get.
It's also good in terms of responsiveness and image quality, and better/best in terms of system support with lenses, flashes, and accessories.
