Highly recommend a native pancake 22mm lens for it. Worth every single penny.

I second what snuk182 said. I really enjoyedtravelling with that combination.

Sorry but M6 does not have any kind of stabilization for stills in its body, like IBIS for of stabilized sensor, therefore those hand held shots you mention benefited only from IS in the lens itself.

It has. "The EOS M6 also now has five-axis in-body image stabilization like the EOS M5, which combines forces with compatible lenses to max out the hand-holding potential."
http://www.popphoto.com/canon-eos-m6-mirrorless-has-dual-pixel-af-in-body-image-stabilization#page-5

Wrong, it does not. It has electronic aka software stabilisation which crops into image and can be combined with lens optical IS but only for video. So as I said, your handheld photos were helped only by the lens IS, not the software one which works only for a video.

Actually Vit Adamek you are wrong also. The M6 DOES have digital stabilization for stills also (not just video).

From Canon's own site: Even when you hold the camera as steady as you can, some unintentional shaking is possible. To counter this, the EOS M6 camera features Combination IS, which uses the camera’s Digital IS with a compatible lens’s Optical IS to help lessen the chance of blur due to camera shake. The EOS M6 also features 5-axis Digital Image Stabilization* when recording video, which digitally helps to minimize blur due to movement. These help ensure the videos you record are as sharp as possible.

Mike. No it definitely doesn't have body stabilisation for stills virtually every review backs this. I'm not sure what combination is involves but its confusing from your text. All learned sources say it's only in the lenses.

Too bad you didn't like the Sony a6000. I own one and think it is a pretty good camera, although elements of its menu system/ergonomics could be improved.

I recently bought a Canon M6 because I wanted access to a wider range of more affordable and versatile lenses.

I returned the M6 because the dynamic range it has isn't as good as the Sony a6000 and the kit lens isn't as sharp as the kit 16-50mm lens Sony supplies with the a6000.

Canon really need to step up their sensor game and improve the quality of the kit 15-45mm lens.

As improved as the M5, M6 and M50 cameras are over their predecessors, I still have the impression they were rushed to market, just so Canon could have a few placeholders in the mirrorless market that might drain a few sales away from Sony, Panasonic and Olympus.

Now that Canon are about to start making their own sensors, maybe we'll see an M6 MkII that addresses these issues.

I really gave the A6000 an effort. I even bought the book. Now it seems that the source of my sorrows was a faulty Zony zoom lens. It finally stopped focusing totally. It got sent to Gothenburg for repairs and now it does not focus to infinity any longer. The A6000 sensor is very good. The user interface less so. I could give another try to A6300 if I get some extra money somewhere. I did not manage to sell the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8. it is probably the best lens I have ever had.

Try a Panasonic out then, some of them have good handy physical controls and the menus are great.

I have the M5 and I love it. The M6 is the smaller version. I use mine for photos and videos.

Although I have a selection of L-lenses from my DSLRs, I am not going to be using them even with adapters. The reason is the weight. DSLR lenses are simply HEAVY and HUGE. I love traveling light. So I bought a selection of Canon's M Lenses and I wish Canon would come out with more.

Sure, both Canon and Sony have adapters for DSLR lenses. But once you go light and small, those lenses will hardly be used.

Canon needs to get 4K video soon.
Nikon has jumped into it, moving ahead of Canon.

It's way cheaper than a Leica.
And it takes better photos.

Don't compare anything with a Leica, photographic blasphemy!

The M6 is the M3 mark 2 so who knows what the new camerra will be called.

M12?

But when the M12 comes out, Bob should wait for the M12 mark 2...and so on... and so on.

Waiting for Godot...we have our quirks, all of us!
I handled the M6 and it felt a lot like a real camera, only smaller. Tempted!
But I had burned my budget buying a pair of anti-noise earphones so it has to wait.
BTW who would have thought that silence could be marketed as a product?

Who would have thought tap water could be marketed as a product? :-0

good for you?

Haha sorry was replying to the next thread

:P

the NX1 was released at twice the price... good grief.

What about nx500?

I had the NX300 which was very praised then by Samsung fanboys, its iso 100 was like iso 1600 of an EOS M (yes, the first model). I got rid of it very quickly.

Your nx300 was defective for sure.

But anyway nx500 is a totally different camera with the 28mp bsi sensor.

Are you using a Samsung camera or are you just reading reviews and you're a keyboard warrior on forums?
If you are a Samsung user, I understand your pain, and why are you lurking on Canon pages of reviews. It's very tempting when you use something that has no future.

As owner of a NX1000 and a NX500 (and some Panasonic, Pentax and Sony cameras) I can say, that the NX500 is a really good small camera. It's sensor is nearly flawless. While the sensor of the NX1000 is quite bad at higher ISO, and if you push shadows you got mushy green instead of some details. Also the NX500 is much faster than the NX1000, the NX500 is fully usable while flushing the buffer. I've tested a NX300, it was slow like the NX1000.

So, yes the NX500 was and is still an amazing camera. (Also it's 4K video is brilliant, only H.265 encoding is a bit annoying.)

It's really a shame that Samsung killed the NX system and Sony doesn't produce an BSI APS-C sensor.

Yes! but you can buy a complete canon system ( plus lens) where as the the Nx1 price is for ""body only"" The canon has a smaller foot print.. its more portable and compact . So please...Try not to be so smug !

Gotta keep this Samsung theme going...and going...and going!
I still have an NX1000, very cherry! All in all, a good cam for it's day and price.
Have Canons too, not sure what this has to do with Type M Canons or Keyboard Warriors, but what the hay!

Captura, nx1000 has nothing to do with nx500 or nx1.

Black: much better video, better sensor, more mp, better native lenses, much faster af.

the big minuses that trumps all. no support, no service, no new products, can't even find "better native lenses" for sale anymore unless you ebay...

@technoworld,
Then why are you pushing for NX500 or NX1 when this forum discussion is supposed to be about the Canon M?

Technoworld juist likes saying camera names. First it was the NX1, now it's the NX500. I doubt he actually has a Samsung camera.

He must be a real Keyboard Warrior!

Ehm...I have a nx1, nx300, nx200, nx100 and a lot of nx lenses.

It's very natural to make comparisons, to let people know of better alternatives.

I appreciate your passion for your samsung kit, and if it was alive and well, you certainly would have a point. it's a shame that samsung killed it, but they did, and it's not really an alternative to any mirrorless outside of maybe the Nikon 1 :p

I kid, but you know what i mean.

wow, nobody told my kit it has been killed :) actually, it thinks it's alive and hence he kicks the various sony, nikon, canon & co that arrive today on the market :) cool...it's a real super zombie :)

Because Samsung pulled out of the camera market. They realized it would be smarter to dedicate their resources to a less competitive field that has a better future of expansion, like industrial ship building.

Unfortunately there are people that loves to pay more for much, much less. For me these people are nuts. They buy any crap that says Canon on the cover. That is why Canon don't change their politics of doing the same crap over, and over again. I think this was unthinkable in a different market, like smart phones or gamming. Maybe that's why SAmsung stop investing in the Mirrorless camera business.... I remember when Commodore released the same Amiga 500 in different bodies. The consumers didn't let themselves being fooled by Commodore, and the company went bankrupt. I mean whi buys these old cameras from Camera? Already obsolete when they are released...

right because smartphones aren't iterative or feature segmented at all .. good lord some people..

no comprendo ;) There is a segment. Not all people have smart phones. I don't have one. But I know that who lokes SmartPhones, wants the best. If you compare the expensive models all them have similar features, but if you compare Canon mirrorless with its competitors you cannot say the same. Is like Canon got stucked in 2012... Ths truth is that a refrigerator brand has a much better camaera than any Canon mirrorless camera and it was released 4 years ago...

actually about the only thing lacking from this is video. hard to say that's a real important feature on a stills camera.

except it's smaller, has a real 3:2 LCD touchscreen with a much better UI. more control dials and direct control, lossless compressed raws that sony can't seem to do if their life depends on it, mic port, smoother video AF, isn't kitted up with the worst kit lens from any manufacturer,etc,etc.

not everyone needs or even wants 4K.. something dpreview users can't just seem to grasp.

"something dpreview users can't just seem to grasp." - Sounds like a lot of users DO want/need 4K though.

how do you know? considering that canon doesn't offer it on all but a few cameras, and they sold *more* cameras last year than the year before, I'd suggest that the normal users don't want it.

again, did you miss the dpreviewers can't seem to grasp part?

Canon are the go to brand because they are Canon. Anyone wanting to get into photography looks at a Canon 550D/600D series camera which is where their market share comes from.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Canon shooter, but like many (not just on DPReview), I'm looking at other brands due to Canon's lack of innovation or competition. The issue with Canons approach to 4K is they treat it like a specialist feature. 4 years ago it was, now every other smartphone and mirrorless camera offers it.

Do you need it? Maybe not, but why not include it for those of us who do? I'm not going to spend £11k on a C300 MKII just to get 4K. Canon intentionally cripples it unlike other brands. The biggest argument against implementing 4K is the claim that cameras price will be increased dramatically by adding 4K. It doesn't have to be increased - Sony, Fuji, Panasonic and Nikon added 4K without crazy price hikes.

canon doesn't intentionally cripple it .. where do you get these concepts from? that's an internet myth that is perpetuated by those that want to sound intelligent but rarely are.

the only DIGIC that canon has that does 4K with a relatively half decent codec requires a fan and venting. got an idea how that will go into a sealed DSLR, or even a M5/M6?

and again, if the unwashed masses wanted 4K, there's lots of cameras that have it, however, when Sony languished down sub 15% marketshare, and olympyus or panasonic can't gain marketshare if their life depended on it, it certainly seems to state that the majority simply don't care.

Why not have the option to both in the same camera when other brands can do it? Again, you try and make 4K sound like a specialist feature.

I have 4K on several devices. never used it. haven't even used 1080p on any camera outside of once going .. hey that's cool.

the fact that everyone assumes that every stills camera must be a video camera with x, y and z features and those features are actually important leaves me puzzled.

having 4k or not having 4k does not change the value proposition of a camera to me.

and I doubt I'm alone, especially when canon continues to sell 48% of the ILC market and most of those cameras didn't have 4k at all.

Yeh it wouldn't do not to mention Sony in a canon post, we canon users throw ourselves at your feet in awe of those so wonderful Sony cameras :-)

4K video files are HUGE. To get into 4K you will need:
1) New monster computer with 2 x 4K monitor.
2) 4 x 24 TB RAID drives - 1 for work, 3 for backups
So add to your camera, a new $10,000 computer system.

@marianco don't be so silly. I edit 4K video on a 2015 MacBook Pro and a 2013 purpose built PC that was £900 back then. I have plenty of storage. If you are crazy enough to want to work with Canons horrific 5DIV files you will need more storage and a more expensive computer but if you use sensible 4K files it's fine. Canons files are larger than RAW .R3D files.

When you think about how many people just take a photo with their mobile that does not have VF and you also write that you have to save in RAV for that you can correct the colors, then it's not the photo you have taken, I'm the opponent of software To embellish a photo.

That's what the M5 is for.

$1000 2 year old lens versus $350 30 year old lens

Damn......

I'll start paying attention to dpreview image tests when they use the same lens on all cameras. With mirrorless there is absolutely no reason why they can't do this.

Sensor stack.

I would imagine the camera makers would look at the image quality of the lens-sensor combination and make the necessary adjustments to get the ideal result. From what I read, Sony's latest FF sensor behaves as if it was curved...how would you focus a generic lens on that one?

Agreed, I used a Canon M6 over the weekend and compared its images to the ones from my Sony a6000 and there is indeed a very noticeable difference, with the Canon's images looking like mush.

My Sony a6000 cost me $700CDN with the kit lens included when I bought it new three years ago. The M6, when it wasn't on sale, was going for at least $900, but it's so far behind the Sony in image quality. What gives, Canon??

Of course, because IQ are the same across the whole spectrum of cameras unless if they are pixel-peeper.

//It's slipshod and lazy, nothing more.//

Respectfully, no, it is an experiment, and it still takes a fair amount of work.

As you've said, the M5 and M6 are extremely similar, so this seemed a good opportunity to explore a lighter review format, even if it doesn't work for everyone. I do apologize if it's not for you, but calling those of us that work on these reviews 'lazy' because we're trying new things is unproductive and, in my opinion, needlessly rude.

I love the Oly mirrorless models, but I honestly can't see them competing with the top full-frame Canons for a long while yet. When the pros start swapping their big guns, I'll believe it.

I've just ordered the M6 as a replacement for my M3 which in turn was a replacement to the M. Big improvements each time. What sells me on the platform are the lenses. The 22mm ƒ2.0 and the 55-200mm zoom, specifically. Together they give me good coverage in a small package that as a travel blogger, I can carry around all day. Or in cramped spaces like the back of an Airbus.

I'd never go back to lugging a DSLR around either, but I'm impressed with the strides Canon has been making after a rocky start.

I wear glasses and I find an EVF is pretty much indispensable because I can see more of the viewfinder than I can with most DSLR's.

Same could be said of nearly every brand EXCEPT canon and Nikon.

..

...
Well:
- "Canon 1D X II and Nikon D5 may well be able to match this performance", Canon 1D X II is a $6000 body while NIKON D5 is $6500.

But:
- " there isn't a DSLR that can focus so far out towards the edge of the frame as this" a6300.

a66300 has 425 AF points cover nearly the *entire screen* VS M6 ONLY has 49 AF points cover ONLY 64% of the screen, even $6000 Canon has only little more AF point than M6.

Best part of a6300 AF system:
" What's all the more impressive is that there aren't any complex settings that need to be configured to get this result - it's essentially point and shoot."

'''
Again, M6 + EVF is more expensive than weather sealed a6300, and almost approaches a6500 price which has weather sealed + touch screen + IBIS.

Correction to Mike's ranting. Canon's M5 and M6 has 19.2 million or so AF points. they place them in 49 zones for one shot zone AF, however, if you use face AF, AI Servo, or move the AF point yourself using a touchscreen that actually works with the M5/M6 - then you can move the point with 1 AF point precision.

However unlike Sony, who orgasms with spec sheets that need a ton of fine print, canon simply calls it 49 point AF. which it most certainly isn't when compared to the likes of Sony,et all.

I have done it and won't use my M / M2 / M3 anymore. It's a really good upgrade, especially if you have legacy glass. The 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 work perfect on the m6. If you stick to the native lenses the M3 will do the job, albeit a bit slower in every regard. The IQ is more or less the same.

Pros:
- Speed (Burst rate, AF, general performance)
- DPAF works with all kind of lenses
- On / Off switch
- Additional control wheel

Neutral:
- Same size / weight
- Same IQ as M3 (maybe even a bit less DR)

Cons:
- Flip mechanism of screen (part of the screen covered by body)
- Price

That's exactly what I'm doing. As with Laqup, the legacy glass makes it worthwhile. Same deal as for any camera system, really. Once you get a good collection of lenses, changing platforms is a big jump.

The M3 is a so-so camera, and the extra control wheel, increase in speed, and improved AF of the M6 will lift it into more or less equivalence with (say) an Oly EPL-8.

Now that Canon has a reasonable range of native lenses for the M platform and the autofocus and controls have improved, the M6 is a logical purchase.

For those who can afford it, of course.

" Same IQ as M3" .. not even close to correct.

So in your opinion, the M6 has considerably better image quality?

Care to elaborate?

At DxoMark its 72 points (M3) vs 79 points (80D). That is not that big a difference. High ISO performance is even better on M3. In the dpreview studio comparison M3 looks a bit sharper. The difference is definitely not huge, therefor "Same IQ as M3" seems to be pretty accurate (M3 was quite good in that regard already..).
If you want you can change it to "IQ possibly a bit better compared to M3". I could have lived with M3 IQ and don't see a huge boost overall...

Size and weight are good selling points for travel photographers like me.

M5 and M6 are APS-C without the bulk of the DSLR.

...and you can still use those exemplary lenses.

... and those exemplary lenses requires US$200 adaptor that defeats the purpose of mirrorless-because-it-is-small

My principle is ... if you cannot put it in your pocket go full size unless weight bothers and quality is not a concern

The M5 and 6 are Canon APSC cameras.

Putting a large or long lens on an M3/5/6 is an option, but not one commonly seen, I suggest.

The beauty of the platform is the small footprint. It can be carried in a modest belt pouch or jacket pocket, and even with the quite good 55-200mm native lens, it is well short of the bulk of a DSLR. It is excellent for travel, or as a second body. One could easily envisage static scenarios: teamed with a DSLR and long lens, equip it with a fast fifty and adaptor to cover a sporting match in close-up. Or with the 22mm ƒ2 pancake to go wide-ish.

With the improved speed of the M6 it may even turn out to be a useful street-shooter without the eye-catching and threatening size of a big camera and lens.

>My principle is ... if you cannot put it in your pocket go full size unless weight bothers and quality is not a concern

Everyone has different principles.

Adding on... I personally this camera makes more sense as an "only" body for somebody who wants APS-C quality in a tiny package. Many people just don't need a DSLR. I would love to have this (or a Fuji again) as a 3rd fun camera body (I love the size and features) but I'm on a limited budget, and just can't warrant it. For others, I'm sure it's their perfect camera they have been waiting for.

I've been shooting weddings, portraits, etc., for a long time and I agree. My 5D II is my 2nd and/or backup to my III. I know when the unthinkable happens that I'm relying on a very similar camera to fill in. If I didn't have a second camera and someone handed me this, of course, I'd make it work.

+1,
I have Pentax with 4 lenses, and Nikon too, I had a thought that I may buy adapters for using them on my two Oly OMDs, but I never did b/c it defeats the purpose of why I bought OMD being small and travel light.

How does the AF performance compare to the likes of other mirrorless offerings from Panasonic, Olympus, and Fuji?

For stills, they are all ok, the big difference is in video where the canon is the clear leader, followed by sony (6XXX) and the rest are far behind.

FWIW,
- The old a6000 has 179 AF points cover nearly the entire screen
- The new M6 ONLY has 49 AF points cover ONLY 64% of the screen
- a6000 has Eye AF vs M5 has NONE
- AF speed...

Oh, forget to mention that:
- For $600, you get a6000 + kit zoom + EVF
- For $1150, you get (M5 + kit zoom) $900 + EVF $250

In other words, you pay 50% less, but better camera/a6000

BTW, in the old day, Canon sells M1/2's body for half of the price of SONY a6000. It make sense.

Now, Canon makes no sense at all.

FYI. The canon M5 and M6 have 20 million points In 49 zones.

The M and M2 were priced low for a reason. They were almost impossible to use. Sweet design, but tough to shoot with.

That is what I said if you'd noticed.
"...The only reason to stay with Canon would be the lenses which are still excellent and if you have a shelf full...."
I was referring to the camera technology, so we have no argument.

I did hint at that when I said: "... Canon needs to get out of the the old General Motors frame of mind. No one cares if Canon had the reputation. The competition has left it far behind, quality product though it is...."

So I guess we agree?

"Whatever they come out with seems to follow the crowd."

50MP. An embarrassingly large selection of pro teles. DPAF. 'Follow the crowd.'

"At the high end both Nikon and the ever amazing Sony and the Leica SL seems to lead the field."

Nikon isn't even in the running in the mirrorless market. Sony is pushing hard with the FF series, but they still lack critical lenses across FF and crop. Leica wants $7,500 for a 24 MP sensor. They're not leading anything except badge tax.

"Why would anyone buy the M6 or even the M5 when they can buy the sharply-reduced-in-price Sony A6000?"

DPAF, touchscreen, lenses.

"Why buy the M5 or M6 when they can buy the now-price-reduced Olympus Pen F?"

Larger sensor, DPAF, lenses.

"I have one and wouldn't part with it."

Which leads us to the most important questions: why do people who buy other brands feel the need to comment so negatively on Canon reviews? Why, if the other brands are so superior, come here at all?

Daniel - my thought exactly. Who wants to hear nagatives but DP is the prime page for opinions, one of a few places ones can comment their inputs without purchasing. I bet the marketing folks of each brand check here for that purpose. If they listen or not - that's another story. though lol. The place where we could learn something, negatives or positives. Let them do it!

I have the PEN-F. It is a sweet and capable camera and I love it dearly. But I also have and use the M3. It is smaller in form and the lenses are smaller than Oly equivalents. Neither are my main camera (an EM-1) but they fill specific niches for me.

Why would any one buy a budget A6000, if you are in to Sony, why pick the A6000 over the A6300, or A6500?

The Canon M5 and M6 are a great cameras and also uses native canon glass etc etc as Daniel Lee Taylor ably argued above.

The most annoying thing about some (very few ) sony cameras users is their need to reassure themselves they have better camera by pointing out other brands are inferior.

Because that is the crappy 50mm that Canon continues to offer to its customers.

I think the 50/1.4 is quite sharp when used on APS-C (sweet spot) @24MP and stopped down. Probably sufficient for studio tests.

Historically, we've had to shoot cameras with adapted lenses where no 85-ish equivalent is available, whether that was initially using the Four Thirds 50mm F2 Macro on Micro Four Thirds or the Pentax 50mm Macro on Samsung NX, it's what we do when there are limited options. We move away from it as soon as a suitable lens exists.

The Canon 50mm F1.4 may be inexpensive but it's optically excellent by F5.6 and there's little to no reason to think it's holding the M6 back.

I totally don't understand why the FOV/focal length has any relavance to the studio tests. It's not like moving the camera a few feet forward back is going to introduce atmospheric interferance or anything.
65
"there's little to no reason to think it's holding the M6 back."

DXO Mark "perceived resolution" ratings would say otherwise:

Canon 22mm on an 18mp sensor: 13mp

Sony FE F1.8 ZA on a 24mp sensor: 15mp (lens described as one of the best in their database)

Canon 50mm F1.4 on a 20mp sensor...... 10mp (not tested on 80D or EOS-M 5/6)

Clearly "one of these things is not like the other"

A good first step would be ignoring DxO. And by the way, there's nothing wrong with that "crappy" Canon 50mm lens--and it would be difficult to find a really crappy 50mm lens.

Seriously? The M5 has the viewfinder integrated. The M6 has it optional as an external mount. In your world options are a bad thing???

Most of the world's photography nowadays is shot on phones and tablets. No viewfinders there!

Nice to have one, especially in bright sunlight, but not necessary.

Having said that, instead of a flash, I'd like to see a pop-up EVF, a la Sony RX100. That would be handy.

Yes, the selling point for Canon M is the inexpensive [native] lens selection while SONY a6000 is not only cheaper than this M, but also better than any Canon M, but SONY lens is not cheaper if users want to add couple of more lenses,

Same goes to MFT, MFT [UWA zoom] lenses are not cheaper comparing to Canon M.

"Better" is pretty much relative. Let's say the A6000 has a good spec sheet and price point (not considering any lenses) if that is the only thing that rocks your boat. Many people will just mount the tiny kit zoom and will be happy all day long.

However the Canon M5/6 are all about ease of use, dual pixel AF, touchscreen, Canon ecosystem, affordable EF-M lenses, easy video and so on. Comparing just the specs between those is totally missing the point.

Depending on your priorities the Canon is the much better camera compared to the A6000 (or the other way around). For example I cannot even hold the A6000 comfortably because there is not enough room for my fingers between most lenses and the grip. In addition I do not want to shell out 1600 Euro for a 24 and 10-18 when I can get an 11-22 plus 22 for 500 Euro.

On a side note I do not like the crazy prices for cameras these days but Canon is not the only one. Just look at the Fuji X-T2 or Sony A6300 or A6500.

Yeas cameras these days going more and more expensive. Look at the Panasonic G70 and G85 ant the price difference. You already mentioned the A6xxx series but the RX100 series as well, they going completely mad with prices :(

@TORN; "Better" means higher Performance/Price. Let me try to help you to understand by using this M6 vs, a6000:

- For the $600 a6000 you get EVF + 24 - 50 zoom

- For the same setup you need to pay $1150 = $900(Body with zoom)+$250 EVF.

Make a sense to you now? No?

BTW, for saving the argument for which camera has better performance,, DPR gives a6000 a GOLD v.s M6 Silver.

Now, Does it help you to understand "Better"? YES?

-

I come over... but that's because I left Canon for Sony mirrorless years ago and am curious as to where things are at with Canon. Glad to see I made the right decision (for me). My original preference was to stay with Canon, since I had already made the lens investment. Sad to see they're still lagging so far behind.

@Mike FL; Make more sense to buy directly the M5 if you wish an EVF.

you may also get the cheap M10. It's super cheap, and offer great result with 0 effort when combine with the ef-m 22m and the the touch screen.

In the end, for the target audience, the M series is very attractive.

Regards

I made much the same decision at the same time and went for Olympus. They had a special on at the time, but Sony would have been equally acceptable. Both excellent.

But I still like my M3 and its set of lenses. The M6 should give me a system with a smaller footprint than my PEN-F and at least as capable as my EPL-7.

LOL I even returned the a6000 and bought the EOS M, the original one. It's all about lenses and their price. If the 16-50 were a good lens you could justify to buy a a6000. You buy a a6000 when you are on budget, right, but then when you need more lenses you will realize, that most of the E-mount lenses are by no means budget. With canon native budget lenses are no problem.

$1,200 vs. $800 camera.

The algorithm is very heavily weighted towards image quality. Since this takes really good pictures in both Raw and JPEG, that gets it a long way towards 80%.

Agreed. The photos I get from just the M3 + 11-22mm combo are absolutely stunning! Pretty sure the M6 would follow suit.

"80% seems high for this"

Says the nikon guy.......

How's it compare to Nikon's APS-C mirrorless?

See, that's the problem. DPR keeps harping on how the thing takes really good pictures. That's got to count for something. There are comments here saying it should receive 75%, instead of 80% as if that makes any difference. Why not 77%?

Smaller.

Smaller plus the screen flips up not down (better on a tripod)

The a6000 is a much older model which Sony can reduce the price on. The a6000, when new was more expensive. That being said, the 6000 is a good camera for the money.

I cross-shopped the A6000 with the M3 when I was buying. The former felt like an appliance and didn't inspire me to make photos. The M3 felt like a proper tool. That's why I went with the Canon.

@darngooddesign
Sony A6000 was $650 at launch for body only & $800 with Kit Lens. Canon EOS M is $780 Body only & $900 with 15-45 Kit lens.

Well alright. Orthopedic shoes...I stand corrected.

A6000 versus M: (I own an A6000 and the original M):

A6000 Screen barely flips
Screen is miserably smaller, terrible for old eyes
EVF is akward in bright daylight. Worst eyecup in history and falls off if you look at it sideways
No touch screen
Can't take a picture while taking a video
Wonky lens selection
Iffy AF in anything but bright light
Likes to lock up after bursts.

@keeponkeepingon
I've never known an owner of a product to show so much hatred towards something they paid good money for, especially in comparison with your m - which is an inferior camera. Maybe sell it? There's a good market for second and third bodies for video shooters.

• A6000 Screen barely flips - Huh? M screen is fixed.
• Screen is miserably smaller - both 3"
• EVF is awkward in bright daylight - 'awkward?' M has no viewfinder at all.
• Eyecup falls off if you look sideways - must be broken. Mine is v difficult to remove.
• No touch screen. That's true, but the model that competes with the M - A5100 has one.
• Can't take a picture while taking a video - No, you're right there.
• Wonky lens selection - wonky means lopsided or crooked so not sure what you mean by that.
• Iffy AF in anything but bright light - just not true at all. AF is one of the best and was class leading at launch.
• Likes to lock up after bursts - not sure what you're shooting, but get a faster card.

The A6000 started at Amazon.de at a price of only 799 EUR with the 16-50.
Cameras got ridiculously expensive recently.

The problem is that Sony wants to keep selling the 6000. Since they want a similar profit they won't lower the price significantly so the 6300 and 6500 have to be priced higher. The 6500 wouldn't be nearly as expensive if Sony discontinued their older cameras like they used to. We didn't see these kinds of price increases with the NEX bodies because Sony would discontinue the previous gen after the new one came out instead of keeping them around. Same thing is true now with some of their other cameras like the RX10 and RX100.

indeed :(

For some odd reason they used the ancient 50mm F1.4 a 30 year old lens designed for film cameras.

Because they are on the same segment? and a6000 still on the selves? don't get it wrong a6300 and a6500 are not replacing a6000. It's like d3xxx, d5xxx, and d7xxx in Nikon. Yeah i know, Sony's product name scheming are lame and confusing.

While Nikon still sells the 7200 and 7100, they call them the previous models on their site which shows that the 7500 is their replacement. Similarly the 6500 replaced the 6300 which replaced the 6000; the 5100 is a unique and different model. Sony just keeps the older versions of its cameras around at lower prices. So price comparing the 6000 is fair because it is still currently sold.

darngooddesign, the a6500 absolutely does not replace the a6300 and the a6000 is, so far as we can tell, still a current model (not remainder stock being sold off, per the D7100 and D7200).

The a6000/a6300/a6500 relationship is more like the D5600/D7500/D500 relationship in Nikon and T7i/77D/80D relationship in Canon. In each case they're models with distinct feature sets and prices aimed at different consumers, rather than the D7100/D7200/D7500 which are sequential updates targeted at essentially the same type of customer.

Sony keeps older models around and in production as their lower budget options to a much higher degree than any other camera maker; seems to be a pretty smart cost saving strategy considering how well models like the a6000 & various RX100s have held up over time.

Plus if we're really honest, Canon should've released something like the M6 about 2 years ago... It's kinda bizarre that it took this long to get Dual Pixel on a really compact body. So yeah, seems like a pretty fair comparison to me. I might've bought into the EF-M mount if this was out much much earlier.

At least they're laying the groundwork for more mirrorless models, which is more than the 1 ever did for Nikon. :s (despite also having AF capabilities ahead of it's peers in some regards)

Impulses, I think the wait was more to get the DIGIC processor up to snuff for the improved tracking & touchscreen trackpad usage.

If you say so...

I agree the top three, and the selling point of Canon M is zoom lens selection, they are small, but cheaper than SONY for most of users for traveling light.

Again, excellent zoom lens selection, IQ is not great, and they are not fast, but small, cheap, and great selection. Canon is #1 camera maker for reasons while SONY is #1 for ML.

BTW, I bought two Olympus b/c weather-sealing + best IBIS.

SONY has great body and very good lens selection, but not cheap, and not small.

@Oli4D. He did say so...with his post...which began with "What's important to me". Are you saying that you know more about what he values than he does?

@esign:

#1. Ummm, no. "Nothing compares to Canon?!" While Canon does present pleasing colors, I would rank it third behind Fuji and Olympus respectively. But I respect your opinion.

#2 - #99. I agree with

Fuji - with flesh-toned teeth and other color bleed issues? Not all it's cracked up to be.

@Mid...Your Fuji must be broken, because that is not my experience.

@Midwest: That's because you're doing it wrong.

But, but Tom Brady had a concussion! He needs our help!

I would suggest something as follows: after running though the shape, size, price, options, and features, a few paragraphs on how it performs as a photographic tool used in a typical, ordinary case. That covers image quality, handling, focus, and menus. Highlight anything that sticks out as being especially good or bad, but leave dead horses unbeaten. As needed, depending on the camera, touch on stuff like buffer capacity, how it handles repeated AF bursts, lock ups, EVF lag, battery life, build quality, etc.

Then at the end if you feel the need you can run into the more editorial stuff, where you can soul search over who the camera might be for, or why people might want it over your favorite Sony or Fuji, or how it is unusually ill-suited to vlogging due to the flip up screen coming up short.

How's that?

It's fundamental to a review to set out the perspective from which you're assessing a product, in no small part so the reader can decide whether or not they agree with or are represented by that perspective.

For as long as I've worked here, we've set out what we think the immediate rivals are, so that you can tell what bar it's being held to. This camera doesn't offer the same price/feature balance as anything else, so we needed to take a position (and explain that position).

That said, this review was an experiment with a new format and some of your other points are consistent with other feedback we've received. We're building up a picture of what worked and what didn't, in this review and the other short-format reviews we've just published.

I'll take a short format review or an editorial take over no review any day of the week, at least it still gives me a broad look at how certain model lines are shaping up, which is hard to glean from specs and forum talk (at least without extensive reading and pruning of the outliers). Click thru metrics probably tell you how well received this is better than any comments tho, so I'll leave it at that.

@Richard Butler

While I agree it's fundamental that the reviewer gives serious thought to the "where", "why", and the "who" before filing a review, I don't think the reader needs to be informed explicitly. I just want to know what the camera is like: I expect to develop a feel for whether this camera is interesting to me or not from the description of the performance and features.

The review was missing the part where you take us through, in a neutral tone and free from running commentary and comparison, *just what it is like to use the camera*. Without that the review comes across as you telling us what to think rather than you giving us the information and asking us to make up our own minds. Devoting a baffling large fraction of the total text to concerns about the selfie-screen mechanics just added insult to injury.

As I say, your comments are noted. There are certainly aspects of this review that we won't be repeating.