cheap, nice little camera - beware of higher ISO

beaverpond wrote:

Nice little camera which I use quite often.

Bad lowlight performance, and limited dynamic range not sooo much better than Sigma Foveon Cameras. ISO200 is visibly worse than ISO100, and ISO1600 just that noisy You rather won't use this setting, if not nessecary.

Best was the price! The EOS-body was sold new for +-150EUR in Germany two years ago. For this money, You get a very nice camera and there is nothing to complain about.

LOL !

I use ISO 6400 on the original M !

ISO 6400 Canon M

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

where did all the noise go?

beaverpond wrote:

Nice little camera which I use quite often.

Bad lowlight performance, and limited dynamic range not sooo much better than Sigma Foveon Cameras. ISO200 is visibly worse than ISO100, and ISO1600 just that noisy You rather won't use this setting, if not nessecary.

what the heck did you do to the poor camera to #$(*&#$ it up that much that ISO 1600 isn't usable?

This is bewildering. I thought maybe OP has come from a full frame and expected the same ISO performance but no, other cams are Sigmas which really are for base ISO only. Maybe OP expected moving to a Bayer sensor would mean no noise penalty at all for ISO?

M is not the best in class but it's certainly in the class of modern APS-C sensors.

beaverpond wrote:

ISO200 is visibly worse than ISO100,

I find that difficult to belive.

It was true on old tiny sensor p&s

But a modern APS-C size sensor  should be fine up to at least iso 1600.

Halina123 wrote:

beaverpond wrote:

ISO200 is visibly worse than ISO100,

I find that difficult to belive.

It was true on old tiny sensor p&s

But a modern APS-C size sensor should be fine up to at least iso 1600.

OP is blowing smoke.

fotophool

My Flickr Pics

EOSM3 ISO 1600

A. You are a great photographer; or B. Your EOS-M was built on a Wednesday, as we say in the auto industry.

I like my EOS-M, but in my experience, dynamic range is poor, as this reviewer found.

Some excellent images you got there!  It really shows how capable this little camera with BIG sensor really is..

007peter wrote:

There are numerous EOS-M defender posting there high-iso photo with software noise reduction applied. So I'll defend you viewpoint instead. I can relate to your frustration:

Before I bought into EOS-M + 22mm f/2 prime, my old walk-about was a Sony NEX C3 + Sigma 30/2.8 DN without flash (broken external flash attachment, horrible design). The noise handling @high iso 1600/3200 is good enough that I never feel I need a flash. In fact, I much prefer low-light image without flash as it preserve the facial skin-tone without annoying blue cast from flash.

You need to gel your flash to match the ambient light.  When done correctly, it won't be immediately apparent that a flash was used in your photos.

I figure I don't need to spend the extra money for a EX-90 external flash when I bought my EOS-M. I was happy with my Sony NEX C3 with a slower f/2.8 lens, therefore, I should be happier with my new EOS-M with a lens that is also 1 stop faster.

But Reality Bites....the results was terrible without flash. Majority of my family photo were in low-light surroundings (dim restaurants, clubs, etc...), and without flash, the shadow noise is horrible. FACES were ruin by numerous mosquito noise. ISO 1600 is barely tolerable, ISO 2000 (available under auto-iso) is the maximum I'm willing to go. Any low-light iso3200 portrait look like they were "sandblasted" with noise across the face. I came home and order a Canon EX-90 external flash immediately.

Satisfaction with EOS-M really depends if you're a Landscape Shooter (on tripod) using long exposure to compensate for the noise, or a spontaneous family portrait photographer who cannot rely on tripod or long-exposure. If you're the latter kind like me, you need to invest in an external flash. If you want Natural Light photography on human facial portraits, you're better off looking elsewhere.

The best cameras I've ever had at this are Olympus compacts: you can throttle down the flash 1:2, 1:4, 1:8, 1:16 all the way down to 1:64th power.

007peter wrote:

nnowak wrote:

007peter......Before I bought into EOS-M + 22mm f/2 prime, my old walk-about was a Sony NEX C3 + Sigma 30/2.8 DN without flash (broken external flash attachment, horrible design). The noise handling @high iso 1600/3200 is good enough that I never feel I need a flash. In fact, I much prefer low-light image without flash as it preserve the facial skin-tone without annoying blue cast from flash.

You need to gel your flash to match the ambient light. When done correctly, it won't be immediately apparent that a flash was used in your photos.

How do you do that, can you show me. What do you mean by "GEL"? Is that like an aftermarket yellow filter?

Flashes have that "blue" look because they are balanced for daylight around 5500K to 6500K.  To match incandescent light, you need to gel the flash to match the orangish 2700K to 3000K range.

Bigger and higher end flashes often come with an orange gel, or they are available as an accessory. My 430EX III-RT came with this orange clip on filter...

For my little 270EX II, I had to improvise. I purchased a giant sheet of gel material in the correct color...http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/163130-REG/Rosco_102302042124_E_Colour_204_Full_CT.html

With a little origami and gaffer tape I fashioned a crude box that slips over the head of the flash.

If you were shooting under fluorescent light, you would gel with a different color.

The other key thing is to get out of the full auto modes when using flash as they lead to blown out subjects and black backgrounds.  Most importantly, you need to bump ISO and get your exposure close to correct without the flash.  By default, your camera will use ISO 400 when shooting flash.  I will often shoot at ISO 1600 or 3200 with flash.

beaverpond wrote:

Nice little camera which I use quite often.

Bad lowlight performance,

Not really...

and limited dynamic range not sooo much better than Sigma Foveon Cameras.

Actually quite a bit better than Foveon. I wonder how you came to this conclusion.

ISO200 is visibly

a little

worse than ISO100, and ISO1600 just that noisy You rather won't use this setting, if not nessecary.

That is not really true. ISO 6400 may start to be too noisy, but ISO 1600 is fine. You can use NR easily, with these files.

Best was the price! The EOS-body was sold new for +-150EUR in Germany two years ago. For this money, You get a very nice camera and there is nothing to complain about.