M5 owners, (and 18-150 ones) please chime in.

1. I always thought the M3 overexposed a bit, the M5 in my taste seems to get it right. So you're not crazy here rather you're very observant which is good, but, it may be a personal preference to my point. My former 5DIII and now M5 had/have about the same exposure, which I like. I didn't like the M3 or G1X II (both DIGIC6)'s exposure defaults which were about 1/3 to 2/3 stops too high. I got used to the M3 / G1X II, but going back to the 1/3 to 2/3 less of the M5 is much happier for me. A very gifted counterpart of mine that shoots on a 5DII normally shots either default or +2/3 stops on his 5DII, and I've never complained when he did my wedding, but I noted he loved Av f/8 and +2/3 stops on like half my wedding. Sure. Worked out great, even though I normally leave my exp comp alone when I can as a purist.

2. Yup, same problem. I just flip my camera off and then on, a lot. I got used to doing that on my former M3, just it's a lot easier on the M5 with it's switch vs the button of the M3.

3. I don't adapt a lot of glass, but others have had that complaint. No suggestions as my primary adaption is the EF 50 f/1.8 STM which doesn't have IS.

4. The EF-M 18-150 IS STM is excellent, for what it is. If you've ever used a superzoom lens before, say the EF-S 18-200 or EF-S 18-135, any of em, you know there is some compromises made optically, true. The EF-M 18-150 IS STM performs VERY well for a superzoom, but, yes, it still makes some trade-offs. I still have my 18-150, still haven't gotten around to selling it (too lazy/busy/hate eBay and CL anyways) and this weekend I shot my EF-M 55-200 IS STM and 28 Macro with excellent results at the beach. Ironically never touched my 11-22 in the bag. I also used my 18-150 though on an evening walk where I didn't want my bag along, also did well, for what it was, but yes, my 11-22 + 55-200 obviously destroy it (optically) combined, no offense to the 18-150.

My advice, give the M5 some time on the exp comp, and don't be afraid to run it hot like my counterpart runs his 5DII half the time; personal preference here.

Turning the camera off, does wonders for the battery, and wake-up time is about the same time as turning it on anyways. You get used to it once you make on/off a habit, once you do that is, in the meantime, yes, drive you crazy during the adaption period.

18-150? I want to sell mine, but it still gets enough use during lazy moments I keep it. Optically the 55-200 and 11-22 perform better and give more interesting shots at 200mm and 11mm extremes respectively too. Personal preference again. The 18-150 has better IS, and faster AF then the 55-200, but, the 55-200 is sharper in the center, and does 200mm. Also the 18-150 does video IS combo, wheras my 55-200 and 11-22 don't. At the end of the day, those minor pluses of the 18-150 are still outweighed by the benefits of more extreme focals of a 11-22 / 55-200 combo, and better optics, you just get better pictures from other lenses, but, you have to do a lens swap, which the 18-150 "cures", and is less bad (probably the best I've shot actually) then other superzooms out there, but it's still a superzoom. I'm not a superzoom person either, but, I'm lazy at times too, and it fits the lazy bill quite nicely.

Lightgreen wrote:

1. I always thought the M3 overexposed a bit, the M5 in my taste seems to get it right. So you're not crazy here rather you're very observant which is good, but, it may be a personal preference to my point. My former 5DIII and now M5 had/have about the same exposure, which I like. I didn't like the M3 or G1X II (both DIGIC6)'s exposure defaults which were about 1/3 to 2/3 stops too high. I got used to the M3 / G1X II, but going back to the 1/3 to 2/3 less of the M5 is much happier for me. A very gifted counterpart of mine that shoots on a 5DII normally shots either default or +2/3 stops on his 5DII, and I've never complained when he did my wedding, but I noted he loved Av f/8 and +2/3 stops on like half my wedding. Sure. Worked out great, even though I normally leave my exp comp alone when I can as a purist.

2. Yup, same problem. I just flip my camera off and then on, a lot. I got used to doing that on my former M3, just it's a lot easier on the M5 with it's switch vs the button of the M3.

3. I don't adapt a lot of glass, but others have had that complaint. No suggestions as my primary adaption is the EF 50 f/1.8 STM which doesn't have IS.

4. The EF-M 18-150 IS STM is excellent, for what it is. If you've ever used a superzoom lens before, say the EF-S 18-200 or EF-S 18-135, any of em, you know there is some compromises made optically, true. The EF-M 18-150 IS STM performs VERY well for a superzoom, but, yes, it still makes some trade-offs. I still have my 18-150, still haven't gotten around to selling it (too lazy/busy/hate eBay and CL anyways) and this weekend I shot my EF-M 55-200 IS STM and 28 Macro with excellent results at the beach. Ironically never touched my 11-22 in the bag. I also used my 18-150 though on an evening walk where I didn't want my bag along, also did well, for what it was, but yes, my 11-22 + 55-200 obviously destroy it (optically) combined, no offense to the 18-150.

My advice, give the M5 some time on the exp comp, and don't be afraid to run it hot like my counterpart runs his 5DII half the time; personal preference here.

Turning the camera off, does wonders for the battery, and wake-up time is about the same time as turning it on anyways. You get used to it once you make on/off a habit, once you do that is, in the meantime, yes, drive you crazy during the adaption period.

18-150? I want to sell mine, but it still gets enough use during lazy moments I keep it. Optically the 55-200 and 11-22 perform better and give more interesting shots at 200mm and 11mm extremes respectively too. Personal preference again. The 18-150 has better IS, and faster AF then the 55-200, but, the 55-200 is sharper in the center, and does 200mm. Also the 18-150 does video IS combo, wheras my 55-200 and 11-22 don't. At the end of the day, those minor pluses of the 18-150 are still outweighed by the benefits of more extreme focals of a 11-22 / 55-200 combo, and better optics, you just get better pictures from other lenses, but, you have to do a lens swap, which the 18-150 "cures", and is less bad (probably the best I've shot actually) then other superzooms out there, but it's still a superzoom. I'm not a superzoom person either, but, I'm lazy at times too, and it fits the lazy bill quite nicely.

Thank you for your very comprehensive replay, Lightgreen. Much appreciated

The underexposure is, indeed, the biggest problem I am faced with.

After owning a M2, a M3, a 300D, a 350D, a 30D, a 1DMKIII, a 1DMKIV and, now, a 5DMKIV, I am quite familiar with the way Canon Evaluative Metering works and the slight variations it incurs from model to model.

For instance, my 5DMKIV is a bit more conservative than the 1DMKIV was but I can deal with it, after learning to read where it steps back to those slightly lower exposure values.

...but this is different. 0.5EV is a lot and, on my test runs, there were instances where it was even more. There's no way to permanently dial-in a +0.5EV compensation as the EC dial works in 1/3s.

I will do some more tests but I fear I'll have to come up with a more drastic approach.

Different users like different mean exposures so I can't understand why they don't make the exposure bias permanent adjustment available in the 1D series a universal feature across models.

PK

4xdog wrote:

I haven't noticed a consistent underexposure on my M5, and I normally shoot in Av, evaluative, at - 2/3 EV. I like DMAX, though, so deep shadows don't bother me.

I use the on-off switch all the time. Habit from many years, so not an issue at all. The M-Fn button on my M5 is reprogrammed to be screen-off, which is useful in those cases where I do walk around with the camera on for a bit (although anything passing by the viewfinder IR sensor wakes it up again.)

I really like the EF-M 22mm, 11-22mm, and 15-45mm lenses, mainly 'cause they're quite good and certainly compact. The 55-200mm is excellent, but it's too big for walking around for any time. The 18-55mm from my M3 days is almost never used (although it's a perfectly nice lens) and I have little interest in the 18-150mm, mainly due to its size.

My recommendation is to play with the camera more, and not to bail on it too quickly. Mine is out for repair now (see the ongoing thread about the rubber surface) and I'm looking forward to getting it back. That's a sure sign the camera has grown on me for all the tangible and intangible reasons gear makes it onto our personal favorites list.

Thank you 4xdog.

As I replied to Lightgreen, above, this isn't your run-of-the-mill slight underexposure.

This is something that seems to average at 0.5EV but is showing instances where it is even more. Most exposures show a very significant gap right of the histogram in "normal" scenes.

I am doing some extensive testing to see if this is something consistent that can be dealt with with a permanent EC compensation value dialed-in.

If it keeps acting too much I'll have to call the guy I bought it from.

(...Now, that I think of it, I might call him anyway to see if he has another camera with can compare exposures with, in store...)

PK

StevenSHH wrote:

I think the EF-M 18-150mm is an upgrade over original kit EF-M 18-55mm(soft at long end),

What is bugging me, precisely, is that, contrary to what many here believe, I always found the 18-55 a dog, hardly used it and couldn't be happier that I was able to bundle it together with the M3 I just sold and, now, I am finding the optical quality of the 18-150 I got very, very close to that "meh..!" performance.

I'll try to evaluate another copy. If I detect the same lack of general quality in that second copy, the only reason I can think of to keep the lens is for the FL convenience.

PK

I use my M5 most of the time in Av mode and dial -1/3 EV.

No problems with underexposing so far.

It's so easy to see in EVF which corrections should be applied to any capture regarding exposure and sharpness.

I'd say take your time to get familiar with your M5.

M18-150 mm is a very good lens for the price in my opinion.

Indeed. Hard to go wrong using the EVF. I find myself leaving the 18-150mm on as a default, and go to other lenses for specific reasons when arriving at a venue.

Also use centerweighted average metering as a default as well.

Dave Seeley wrote:

Wondering if you got a particularly bad (dark?) copy of the M18-150... If it's the only lens you have at the moment, it could account for your metering issue as well, AND the undercorrection of vignietting in Lightroom. I'd recommend borrowing another M lens to test the camera... or an adapter w your EF glass.

No, I have a very significant number of EF-M and EF (L) lenses. Tested the 24-105 today with the adapter, same results.

PK

ZedDoctor wrote:

PhotoKhan wrote:

So, after pondering for some weeks about the M6 and the M5 I finally went with the M5 and bought the kit with the 18-150.

I am struggling with some problems here and would like to know if you guys had to adapt to similar performance.

1. My M5 clearly and consistently underexposes by about 0.5EV in Evaluative Metering. Anyone else with this problem?

Have you tried using the Histogram and shoot according to that? Don't base mine on the meter, only histogram...

Yes, in my photography I use the histogram a lot (it is indispensable in certain kind of shots). However, when I get a new camera I always test what it does in evaluative metering, with EC set to "0". They always come out alright, give or take 0.3EV. Not this one, though...

2. The camera keeps waking up from sleep mode with the slightest move. I brought it along for some tests in a work day and when I finally got it out of my flight case, the battery was completely depleted on account of this. Is there any way to switch this “auto-awake” off?

Some people like this, some don't. If the camera didn't do that, you'd have people complaining about the wake up time from sleep..

Well, that was never a problem with my previous 2 "M" cameras...

3. The M3 had a limitation in which an EF lens featuring IS and used with the adapter wouldn’t turn the IS OFF, once it had been activated, just keep it running indefinitely. It had to be switched-off for the IS to stop working. The M5 seems even more problematic in this regard since the IS fires on as soon has the camera is turned on, so there’s not even the work-around of using the “ON/OFF” camera switching to, at least, spare the battery until the IS is first used. This in an big battery draining problem.

I always have IS turned off on EF lenses and never had a problem...

So, you don't use IS on EF lens with the adapter...?

4. The 18-150 is proving to be much more limited, optically-wise, than the reviews would indicate. Going in, I already knew it wouldn’t be anything to write home about but it seems even more limited. For instance, not even the profile correction in LR seems able to fully correct the vignetting at the long end. After the correction it is still pretty obvious. How do yours perform?

I shoot mainly primes, except for my f4 FF zooms.

I am now considering several options:

1. Return the camera + the lens.

Could exchange it instead of returning.

I meant exchange, actually...sorry for using the word "return".

2. Just return the lens and have the camera tweaked in what regards to EV by Canon, with whom I have a great, almost personal, support relation.

If it's part of the kit, I can't see how you can just return the lens..

I have ways to make that happen

3. Pending on concurring reports from you guys, keep everything and just assume the 18-150 is extremely limited and have always in mind that metering need EC.

Would love to hear some inputs about this from fellow owners of both the camera and the lens.

Thanks.

PK

-- hide signature --

“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.humbertoborgesfotografia.com/
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

-- hide signature --

"Earth with out art is just eh."

I've now come to the conclusion, by testing multiple EF-M and EF lenses in various scenarios, that my M5 does, indeed, underexpose a bit but nothing much different than what my 5DMKIV does (...about 1/6 to 1/3 of a stop...).

Where it is very different is in having an Evaluative Metering logic that seems to be a completely different one from that on the previous DSLRs and Ms I used.

Any noticeable portion of white or highly reflective surfaces in the shot (...as low as 5 to 10% of the whole scene...) will immediately trigger an inordinate amount of "exposure defensive bias" by consistently underexposing 0.5 to 1.0 EV, in TV and Av.

Since this is a consist behavior that I've now learned to "read" and since I can have the histogram displayed for all shots in both the viewfinder and the back LCD, I've decided to adapt to it.

As for the 18-150, I still want to test a another copy side-by-side to see if the performance on this one is the most it can give.

Thank you guys for all your help! Much appreciated

PK

It's probably the DIGIC7 itself has a different bias, hence it's more extreme.

I concur, although upping the exposure comp appears to be the only viable solution aside from bumping exposure on RAWs in post which is a pain, the former is a "hammer" that can produce "correct" (to taste) exposure in some circumstances, and way too much in others, it's akin to my problem with Picture Styles, I'm using a custom one that gets it "right" 90% of the time, and the other 10%, I'm left with overblown oranges as I don't like the default color bias of the M3/M5 any more than you like the exposure bias of the M5. The RAW exposure bump, sure, works, but royal pain in the neck as that's lots of review and adjustment IE time, ditto with my color style issue. I ultimately settled on having images right 90% of the time and applied my custom picture style, which I might recommend you do the same, just bump your exp comp by +1/3, may not be the full 1/2 you want, but it'll get you closer without overblown chance at +2/3, just my two cents.

Your only other alternatives are stick with the M3, or even consider a G1X II. The latter is infamous for highlight blowouts though, in my book, drove me bats, but otherwise it's a good performer.

After chomping on it (and my breakfast) maybe try an exposure comp of +1/3 and use a DPP4 recipe (or LR batch) with another +1/8 exp comp on your RAWs (if you're a RAW shooter). That should give you darn close to 1/2, but at some minor noise expense as exp comp of +1/3 on the camera results in either shutter/f-stop drop or ISO push, vs RAW pushes result in ISO bump only. Although somewhat clunky, a 1/3 camera bump and 1/8 RAW post batch is a pretty close solution for your needs. I might just try 1/3 push on the camera for a while though first and shoot RAW, and play with the RAWs if you it behooves you.

Two things that just popped in my head...

You might want to play with ALO on/off, DR+ on/off and your exp comp. ALO might be "fighting" you by pushing certain tones and not others, IE try ALO off, and +2/3 comp or ALO on (on by default) and +1/3 comp. ALO off will prevent Canon's default selective tone curve corrections to exp comp, allowing you to push the whole scene more.

Also, DR+ (highlight tone priority, off by default) both on and off are worth a shot (no pun intended) and DR+ on with +1/3 to +2/3 comp is a good idea as that should give you highlight blowout protection, with your added comp, that's actually the most logical solution, but perhaps the least purist approach.

A combination of ALO off, DR+ on, and a higher exposure comp say +2/3 is also worth a try.

Lastly if you shoot continuous, it should be noted all continuous shooting downgrades RAW data from 14-bit to 12-bit compressed. Although it's a page from the Sony/Nikon playbook, I've found it to have no perceivable impact, but perhaps with your tastes, it might. Doubt it, but if you're not using continous shooting modes, any of them, it forces RAW data and JPG outputs to render from 12-bit data instead of 14-bit. It's true impact, is by shooting 12-bit instead of 14-bit, pushing some stuff in post, in extreme circumstances, isn't as profitable. Once again, most folks aren't going to push things more then 3 stops in either direction in post, but if you do, sure, 14-bit handles better, not much, but some (as I said, extreme circumstances).

Lightgreen wrote:

It's probably the DIGIC7 itself has a different bias, hence it's more extreme.

I concur, although upping the exposure comp appears to be the only viable solution aside from bumping exposure on RAWs in post which is a pain, the former is a "hammer" that can produce "correct" (to taste) exposure in some circumstances, and way too much in others, it's akin to my problem with Picture Styles, I'm using a custom one that gets it "right" 90% of the time, and the other 10%, I'm left with overblown oranges as I don't like the default color bias of the M3/M5 any more than you like the exposure bias of the M5. The RAW exposure bump, sure, works, but royal pain in the neck as that's lots of review and adjustment IE time, ditto with my color style issue. I ultimately settled on having images right 90% of the time and applied my custom picture style, which I might recommend you do the same, just bump your exp comp by +1/3, may not be the full 1/2 you want, but it'll get you closer without overblown chance at +2/3, just my two cents.

Your only other alternatives are stick with the M3, or even consider a G1X II. The latter is infamous for highlight blowouts though, in my book, drove me bats, but otherwise it's a good performer.

After chomping on it (and my breakfast) maybe try an exposure comp of +1/3 and use a DPP4 recipe (or LR batch) with another +1/8 exp comp on your RAWs (if you're a RAW shooter). That should give you darn close to 1/2, but at some minor noise expense as exp comp of +1/3 on the camera results in either shutter/f-stop drop or ISO push, vs RAW pushes result in ISO bump only. Although somewhat clunky, a 1/3 camera bump and 1/8 RAW post batch is a pretty close solution for your needs. I might just try 1/3 push on the camera for a while though first and shoot RAW, and play with the RAWs if you it behooves you.

I didn't even go into color in the OP because it would stir up things, once again

...but since you mentioned it, I must say, Canon is playing a very dangerous game.

The M3 already exhibited a standard different pallette than the traditional "Canon DSLR" colors (...contrary to the M2 which featured the exact same superb pallette...) and this camera, now, is even a bit "further out" with renditions balancing between Sony and Fuji styles.

I really don't mind because I shoot RAW and have long ago mastered color in PP for it to look like I want it to,

...but, given the main target of the "M" line - users that just want OOC Jpegs - it is not curial that Canon is drifting away from one of the main features that set it apart from other manufacturers...especially when their mirrorless line (...in this particular moment in history, still and irrespectively of the strong dominance it will evolve into, as I believe...) loses to the competition in other significant areas.

PK

You know, now that you mention it, some of the first shots with my M5 were out a window and the sun had just broke through a grouping of clouds, reflective scene galore, and the M5 did exhibit exactly as described.

Try DR+, it should protect your highlights, instead of the camera doing it IE you're telling the camera to protect it with a different countermeasure then just dropping the comp and applying ALO, you're telling it to push the ISO and change the curve, two different approaches.

I don't mind DR+, produces excellent results on the M5, but as a purist I don't once again. I might use it more often if I could assign it a button rather then diving into menus to turn it on/off.

Side note, have an example you could post of some "bad" exposed images? Maybe bad camera? Doubt it, and I hate posting my images these days, hence I haven't. But if you'd like to share I can comment either way on the phenomena.

And yes, the M2 was the last M to keep the traditional colors. I'm not adept on color correction in post though, so it drives me bats.

Lightgreen wrote:

You know, now that you mention it, some of the first shots with my M5 were out a window and the sun had just broke through a grouping of clouds, reflective scene galore, and the M5 did exhibit exactly as described.

Try DR+, it should protect your highlights, instead of the camera doing it IE you're telling the camera to protect it with a different countermeasure then just dropping the comp and applying ALO, you're telling it to push the ISO and change the curve, two different approaches.

I don't mind DR+, produces excellent results on the M5, but as a purist I don't once again. I might use it more often if I could assign it a button rather then diving into menus to turn it on/off.

Side note, have an example you could post of some "bad" exposed images? Maybe bad camera? Doubt it, and I hate posting my images these days, hence I haven't. But if you'd like to share I can comment either way on the phenomena.

And yes, the M2 was the last M to keep the traditional colors. I'm not adept on color correction in post though, so it drives me bats.

There you go:

PK