Canon EOS M50 User review and re-evaluation 30 June 2020

At that time I have to confess I lacked enthusiasm for both camera and lens.  Maybe that is because I was taken up with other projects and also because I got a not-so-good copy of the kit lens.

However I recently bought another M50 and several EF-M lenses and have had more time to spend with both camera and lenses, increasing my appreciation of both.

I chose the M50 because:

I prefer my cameras to have  a built in EVF, fully articulated monitor and a proven means of preventing image degradation due to shutter shock.

The M5 comes close on the main specifications but it uses an older processor producing slow performance.

The M6 and M6.2 do not have a built in EVF or fully articulated monitor and in addition the M6.2 does not offer electronic first curtain shutter making it prone to the effects of shutter shock with some lenses.

So the M50 it is and this time around I have been enjoying the experience of using this very compact, inexpensive camera which I estimate delivers about 90% of the imaging capability of full frame models at less than half the price, size and mass.

I think that Canon’s M system beats  Micro Four Thirds at their own game.

The M50 is smaller, lighter and less expensive than many MFT cameras but has a larger sensor with more pixels delivering very good imaging capability and performance.

Canon’s promotional material would suggest it is intended for beginners to camera photography and I think that it very well could be. But it is also quite suitable for more experienced operators who understand how to get good performance from the M50’s limited control set.

Indeed I find many modern digital cameras are burdened with too many buttons, dials, stacked dials, levers, switches and other controls to the point of complete confusion.

I find it somewhat refreshing to use a camera with just enough controls to enable the operator to achieve good command of the device in Capture Phase of use.

On paper the specification level is modest. There is no in body stabiliser but each of the zooms and one of the primes is stabilised..

There is only one control dial  and no custom modes on the mode dial.

Auto ISO implementation is basic, one might say primitive when compared to other current model Canon cameras, with no account of lens focal length.

But with practice one finds a workflow by which  decently efficient operation can be achieved.

Image quality from the 24Mpx sensor is good especially at low to medium ISO settings but there is more luminance noise at high ISO levels than many current APSC cameras produce.

Dynamic range is not class leading but is quite sufficient for most subjects even those with fairly high brightness range.

The camera responds promptly to user inputs and rarely gets in the way of picture taking.

Continuous drive performance is aided by the use of a fast memory card.

Single AF is extremely reliable and accurate and continuous AF is also reliable although the buffer is small.

With AF Operation > Servo, AF Method> Zone and Drive Mode High speed continuous the camera runs at 7 frames per second but only for 2 seconds.

With Drive Mode at Low speed continuous (Tracking priority) the camera runs at 4 fps for 12 frames then the buffer clears in 4 seconds with a 170MB/s card.

These are hardly figures to inspire a dedicated sports/action photographer but do give perfectly usable results with many moving subjects.

I abandoned Canon DSLRs years ago because of their unreliable autofocus so it is very pleasing to see that with their mirrorless dual pixel AF system Canon has finally solved its AF problems in convincing fashion.

The camera is popular with vloggers  because of the fully articulated monitor, microphone input point and good quality 1080p video.

It is an unpretentious little camera which in the hands of an experienced user can deliver good image quality and performance in a wide variety of photographic situations.

Here I will only cover Canon lenses. There are plenty of third party lenses for the EF-M mount. Some offer autofocus but many have no electrical connection with the camera body so are  manual focus, manual exposure only.

Primes:

* The EF-M 22mm f2 is a very small, light, inexpensive, unstabilised  pancake style lens which gives an angle of view equivalent to 35mm on full frame.

My copy is a bit soft in the corners at f2 but becomes very sharp right across the frame from f4. It has low levels of flare, distortion, peripheral shading and color fringing all readily correctable in Adobe Camera Raw or other image editor with a built in correction profile for the lens.

On my comparison tests I have difficulty distinguishing between pictures made with this lens on the M50 and those  from my full frame EOS R with the RF 35mm f1.8.

* The EF-M 28mm f3.5 macro with stabiliser and built in macro-light flash is an interesting lens. I don’t have one yet but it receives very positive reviews for optical quality and versatility both as a general purpose lens and for close-ups.

* The EF-M 32mm f1.4 (unstabilised) is another one I have yet to acquire but this too receives very positive reviews for optical capability and all round versatility especially in low light.

Zooms:

* The original kit zoom was the EF-M 18-55mm. This was replaced by the EF-M 15-45mm IS in 2015. I have had three of these over the years. Two showed significant decentering, one does not.

The best copy is a very good lens, sharp across the frame at all focal lengths and apertures with moderate distortion, peripheral shading and color fringing all readily correctable after capture.

The only substantial problem with this lens is sample variation which has been widely reported on user forums and is an issue Canon needs to rectify ASAP.

* The EF-M 55-200mm IS was released in 2014 presumably as a belated companion to the 18-55mm kit zoom. This lens gets mixed reviews suggesting it may not be one of Canon’s finest.

* The EF-M 18-150mm IS was introduced in 2016. It forms a very good companion to the 11-22mm in a versatile two lens kit for the M50.

* The EF-M 18-150mm is often praised on user forums and receives good reports on formal testing. Mine was decentered on receipt and is with Canon for rectification. I will report on the outcome when I can.

* The EF-M 11-22mm f4.0-5.6 IS  is a very compact, inexpensive ultrawide zoom introduced in 2013. Some users regard this as the best zoom in the EF-M catalogue.

My copy is sharp across the frame at all focal lengths and apertures with significant but readily correctable distortion and corner shading.

Everyone who has or is contemplating purchase of an EOS-M kit should have the 11-22mm high on their shopping list. It is almost the perfect lens for the modern era, small, light, inexpensive and of excellent quality.

People complain about the limited EF-M lens catalogue but really there are only two lenses missing.

The first is a higher quality, better built standard zoom. There are various rumors floating around about this but if Canon just did a 15-50mm f3.5-5.6 and got the quality under control I think that would do the job.

The second is a sport/action/wildlife tele-zoom with a focal length range around 100-300mm or 100-400mm. Of course users can mount any of the numerous EF or EF-S tele zooms via the adapter but a designed-for-EF-M version could be smaller and lighter.

I think a lens like this could be very popular particularly as we now have the M6.2 with very fast frame rates in continuous AF, something not previously seen on an EOS-M camera.

The other obvious missing product is a body  which combines the specifications and capabilities of the M5, M6.2 and M50, hopefully with IBIS as well.

If Canon ever gets around to doing this and gets it right I have no doubt it will be eagerly welcomed by M camera users.