cheap, nice little camera - beware of higher ISO

whakapu wrote:

Nice shot but I'm now going to worry about the metal legs of that sofa scratching your polished wooden floor.

Thank you:) Sofa's legs are actually wood with soft polyurethane protection, and floor is not hardwood — just laminate:) so no scratches:))

007peter wrote:

Thank you for taking time showing me how it is done.

A CTO gel will match your flash to tungsten light but remember to set your WB to tungsten too

nnowak, would you mind posting a photo or two that were taken in the conditions you described? I would love to be able to use flash and have the image not look burned out.

With a flash like the 90EX, does it communicate with the camera so that it matches the brightness of the flash to your ISO level?

The major thing with the Eos M is the lack of viewfinder, even a canon made optical clip on one that worked would be great. I know you can get other types but ive heard they not too good. I bought the Eos M as a light camera but i like using a G11 better as i find the M hard to use, im not a screen shooter and i can not get used to it. But............ it is a fantastic camera!!!

Thank you!

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.

EOS M w/22mm@f8 at ISO 6400 under my kitchen's light produces the following JPEG (no PP here):

whakapu wrote:

Damn that looks good.

Not a bad photo of it either.

And it could be better: there's some amount of micro-blur, due to the fact I just realized that 18Mpx is a lot more sensible for handheld's vibrations.

I've posted this because I am the first person shocked for the result: I couldn't believe this one-hundred bucks body could do so good results at higher ISO. My 5D MarkII couldn't make it better. So the title should be corrected to "[...] beware of higher ISO, you won't believe it!" 

Acceptable levels of noise is subjective.  The amount of noise in the above food shot has more noise than I would be comforable sharing.

Looks like a Big Kahuna burger 🍔. They are tasty! LOL

But at 6400 there's a lot of color noise in the raw files so I guess you shot this in jpg.

OzarkAggie wrote:

Looks like a Big Kahuna burger 🍔. They are tasty! LOL

It's home-made: 300g of high quality local meat, pepperoni stir-fried, bacon.

But at 6400 there's a lot of color noise in the raw files so I guess you shot this in jpg.

Yes it's "JPEG, no PP here" as I wrote.

I think it's not too bad, considering it's a camera from a 4-years old project, with a 6-year old sensor. But consider I came from a 40D, so it's more than enough for me. I also stopped pixel-peeping when I started printing my shots, having photography fun, and get a life

Max Bini wrote:

OzarkAggie wrote:

Looks like a Big Kahuna burger 🍔. They are tasty! LOL

It's home-made: 300g of high quality local meat, pepperoni stir-fried, bacon.

But at 6400 there's a lot of color noise in the raw files so I guess you shot this in jpg.

Yes it's "JPEG, no PP here" as I wrote.

I think it's not too bad, considering it's a camera from a 4-years old project, with a 6-year old sensor. But consider I came from a 40D, so it's more than enough for me. I also stopped pixel-peeping when I started printing my shots, having photography fun, and get a life

Big Kahuna burger only exists in the movie Pulp Fiction.

You don't need to be a pixel peeper to notice the noise. It also depends on how large you print.