Hi all,
So after much deliberation and reading all of your comments I went ahead and bought the m50. My initial thoughts after a brief try out of the camera:
- The user interface is great, it's really easy to use, with a bright touchscreen, much better than my old dslr!
- Photos in natural daylight look good although I haven't had chance to fully test this yet and compare to my other cameras/phone
- Zoom lens seems good
- Build quality is great, feels good to hold, lenses are nice and small which is what I wanted
However...the big negative is that I am struggling to get photos indoors and close up that are even close to the quality I get from my Samsung s9! This seems crazy! I thought that the bigger sensor would mean more detail and better image quality but it's just not the case. So far I've only tried auto and aperture priority but the detail and sharpness is so much better on my s9 it's crushing, I so wanted the canon to be better in this regard. I know this could be improved with a prime/macro lens but I kind of feel that after paying a fair bit of money for a dedicated camera it should be better than a phone?!
What lenses do you own for your EOS M50? The Kit lenses (currently 15-45mm) are generally underwhelming. The 15-45 isn't a bad lens, but it's not a good comparison for the cellphones which are designed to perform better in low light. I think you might find more appealing results from a faster prime.
Can anyone explain this? Would the quality be better on any other mirrorless camera in this price range? Or is this normal and if so why?
No. Though I haven't read the other replies in this thread, the results from other mirrorless cameras are generally BELOW the optical results from the EOS M with a decent lens. The only cameras with a difference in performance would be Fuji (due to a good lens range, but they're expensive) or Sony (which is faster but has a less pleasant interface with the best optical results only coming from their more expensive lenses). The EOS M cameras are still my favorite APS-C mirrorless cameras.
These are obviously just quick tests I've done and I'll test it more tonight but it does seem such a shame that my phone is producing better low light and close up images.... even when I enlarge the images it's still better
Your lens choice (the 15-45mm) is the standard Kit Lens that often comes with the EOS M cameras these days. This lens is generally dimmer, resulting in higher ISO and therefore less detail when shooting in lowlight - especially when the ISO is bumped up. Your new smartphone is going to be using very powerful noise reduction to smooth out the image details. It's actually pretty amazing what they can do these days. You can see why camera companies need to paddle hard to keep their chins out of the water. If you are only using the 15-45mm lens, your results will seem pretty close to what your smart phone is producing. Overall, your phone is producing nice pictures... similar to the results of my wife's modern smartphone (which is an OPPO). But when comparing them side by side, consider using a faster lens. You should also find that the EOS M camera you are using will ultimately take nicer shots. The advantage for you is that you can take pretty decent pics in medium-to-low light with that phone of yours. If it has an optical zoom you'll be doubly-blessed although most cellphones use digital-zoom ... which is really destructive to image quality.
.
The best thing about modern smartphones is that they're always with you and you can always take a good picture with them when you have no "real" camera with you. But I just shot a few thousand shots at my brother's birthday party about 2 weeks ago. And I was astonished by the image quality of the pictures taken by the many guests there... most of whom owned the very latest Samsung and Apple phones. Some of the guests appeared to be extremely wealthy and their phones may have been a status symbol to some of them. But in the end, all of the shots I took with my Mirrorless M6 + EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens and my EOS 6D (DSLR) + EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM lens produced the best results for the evening. Most of them were shot under very challenging lighting conditions - long after sunset - and without a flash. Cell phones are certainly handy - and they serve a purpose. This is one of the reason why second-hand dealers no longer show interest in cameras any more... because everyone has a cellphone. But camera's still have a considerable edge over cellphones. Especially when it comes to creative shooting or shallow DOF effects.
.
iPhone 6S - considered to possess one of the first cameras capable of taking quality images "as good as any camera". I might have to disagree on that when it comes to low-light.
.
Smartphone Camera Vs EOS M (with DPAF)
I've been doing side-by-side comparisons with my AUD $1400 iPhone for quite some time now. I bought the iPhone 6S - a model that was praised as having the "best camera at the time" and "capable of producing near-DSLR results". The truth of course is something in between. First of all, these smartphones get better cameras every single year. You can thank Apple's former CEO Steve Jobs for this because he believed in holding up release (and even production) in order to get the very best possible camera into his phones before release. The rival companies (you know who they are), spent millions to spy on Apple and to hack them in incidents of Industrial Espionage. They came away with the knowledge that the camera was the most important piece of hardware to be incorporated into their devices.
.
One of my dislikes of the most recent generations of Smartphone cameras is the fake bokeh that they so often get wrong. Two samples below show exactly what I'm talking about. All the modern cameras that can produce forced (fake) bokeh suffer from this and it's simply due to the A.I. being confused. Some of the results are horrid. And whilst someday this might be more effectively resolved, it will take multiple optics that are offset in order to be capable of performing properly and effectively. This might take a few years. Meanwhile, a normal "camera" can do the job and it can do the job instantaneously and attractively.
.
iPhone's latest incarnation can't properly remove a background.
The problem with glass with the latest phones that use fake Bokeh imposition.
This is what happens when your cellphone rings when you are taking a picture.
iPhone
6D (DSLR)
.
iPhone (note smeared detail and noise - which has already been reduced during PP)
6D (DLSR)
.
iPhone
6D (DSLR)
.
I think that whilst a dedicated camera is capable of producing a nicer, cleaner image with genuine bokeh and rich, accurate colors... the smartphones are now very good. My wife can take vastly BETTER pictures with her OPPO phone in dark rooms than I can take with my iPhone. The difference is very impressive. She picked her phone for the camera quality and it gives the Google PIXEL phone a serious run for its money. A very close friend of mine recently purchased a new iPhoneX and the pictures she took were very nice indeed. I think she may have sold her DSLR as a result.
.
Below are some samples from the iPhone alongside the EOS M.
Notice how well the iPhone performs when it's in good light. Then take a look at how poorly it performs when in lowlight. The difference is quite notable.
.
iPhone - in-camera Panorama used
EOS M + 22mm - 3x shot Panorama created
.
iPhone
EOS M + 22mm
.
iPhone - I even used a tripod. Longest exposure possible + same settings as M used
M6 + 22mm lens - single exposure (Tripod used).
.
iPhone
M6 + 32mm (handheld)
.
iPhone (take a closer look at this one). Check out the noise levels and smeared details.
EOS M + 22mm lens
.
iPhone
EOS M + 22mm
.
iPhone
EOS M + 28mm Macro (unedited)
.
The only threat to cameras in 2019 are Smartphones:
I have been saying here on DPreview that the biggest and only threat to the EOS M (and any digital camera) is the Smartphone with a camera. Our cameras are always on us when we leave the house. I know mine is. I need to keep in touch with a handfull of people and it's important for me to be able to receive calls then I am shopping, jogging, exploring or driving (I only take calls with a hands-free handset in my car).
.
So for me, whilst I'd always enjoy carrying a camera with me, it's much easier to carry my phone and I can still take a decent picture in good light. If I am shopping I can take snapshots of food or even animals to send to my wife and friends. Where I tend to suffer is when an amazing sunset is involved. No cellphone seems to be able to capture a sunset like an APS-C camera can. They're also slow to deploy. I've had moisture on my finget tips from drinking a frosty beverage and my phone refused to turn on because it wouldn't (or couldn't) read my thumbprint to unlock. I ended up missing out on important shots due to the longer deployment time.
.
Something else a smartphone can't do is zoom in whilst producing a quality image. I was photographing a storm in the distance over the city yesterday and any attempt to zoom in resulted in the Digital Zoom being used automatically since optical zoom isn't possible. The resulting images were soft and peppered with noise and heavy grain.
.
iPhone - taken 20 minutes prior to the shot below - during sunset while jogging)
EOS M6 + EF 100-400mmL II + 2x III extender (uncropped)
.
--
Regards,
Marco Nero.
.
