Regret buying EOS M50

Max Iso wrote:

davev8 wrote:

Max Iso wrote:

davev8 wrote:

Max Iso wrote:

Astronomy imaging is using either long exposures of minutes to hours, or hundreds/thousands of images consecutively. Hence the heat buildup is cause DURING the exposure, not from LV running at an idle. Just idling in LV does cause some heat but nowhere near what is generated during an exposure where the sensor is recording the data,

so what's the difference with the work the sensor has to do by recording data and the camera processing it and sending it to a memory card or the sensor recording data and the camera processing it and sending it to the EVF????..i mean all the photo sites has to be active to work the DPAF

Im not an engineer and can't tell you exactly how it works but this is how i understand it. And again we can test for it to see if it's true. Just turn on your camera, any camera with LV, and immediately take a shot. Then leave it on for minutes or hours and take another shot.

If the noise/DR isn't noticeably different (with the same exposure ect) then we know LV doesn't build substantial heat. Have you ever heard any website that tests SNR like DPR or DXOmark mention their SNR tests are altered by how long LV has been active?

I haven't. Everybody knows many of Sony's bodies overheat in 4k video, but why not when just idling in LV?

because its the processing cpu that's overheating the camera when 4K is running

So that's 1 out of 3. So if just idling in LV builds enough heat to make a difference in SNR/DR, why no mention by any sensor testers? And it should be easy enough to prove by anybody here who believes it. Right? I've done it when i had my 70D, no difference after 10 minutes. Feel free to try an hour.

have you try it with a small ML body ????why is there a discrepancy between the 80d and M5 when canon say they are the same sensor  ?....why are dedicated astro cameras refrigerated

And it's not just the CPU, the memory cards and batteries add heat during processing intensive tasks like 4k fyi. But so does the sensor, especially when you consider Sony uses full sensor 6k downsampled to 4k in all their modern bodies.

davev8 wrote:

Max Iso wrote:

have you try it with a small ML body ????why is there a discrepancy between the 80d and M5 when canon say they are the same sensor ?....why are dedicated astro cameras refrigerated

DIGIC 7 versus DIGIC 8

Not only do you have a potential in heat, but also setting ISO.  Skew that benchmark and you can lose EV.

But is it really the same sensor, out of the same FAB?  Can they be interchanged?

I think they are same basic design, but different iteration.

Mine has an aweful lot of CA as well. It only starts to clear out on f4. Turned on lens correction in-cam and it reduces it but not much. Haven't tested it on dslr, though.

OzarkAggie wrote:

davev8 wrote:

Max Iso wrote:

have you try it with a small ML body ????why is there a discrepancy between the 80d and M5 when canon say they are the same sensor ?....why are dedicated astro cameras refrigerated

DIGIC 7 versus DIGIC 8

the M5 has the newer DIGIC 7 processor so should be better than the 80D  with the 6/6+ but its not

Not only do you have a potential in heat, but also setting ISO. Skew that benchmark and you can lose EV.

But is it really the same sensor, out of the same FAB? Can they be interchanged?

I think they are same basic design, but different iteration.

yes sensor same but different micro lenses to suit the close flange distance of ML

the M3 had DSLR macro lense and that's why it can  sometimes have colour shifts and vignetting towards the edge of the reame

rrc1967 wrote:

Riyaz G wrote:

Max Iso wrote:

Riyaz G wrote:

rrc1967 wrote:

it could be that IS hasn't settled yet.

even though it's on all the time. hmmm. try some static telephoto shots with IS on and IS off (using tripod) and see if that makes a difference.

The Canon EOS M50 has digital image stabilization. the first image (of the thread) was at 12500s in 50mm f2.2 - may be because of miscalculation of the digital IS - part of the image is not stabilized.

Digital IS has been used for some time for video recording, but that also has issues and isn't perfect. Do you happen to have a link to any documentation on how digital IS works for stills imaging, and if it is indeed applied for stills in the M50?

I couldn't find any documentation. Generally IS is for both images and video, as i used in previous cameras.

Digital IS is video ONLY.

+2 If the OP is thinking that there is Digital IS present and is tailoring his settings and technique for that, then this alone could cause several issues.

OTOH shooting high speed bursts and cherry-picking the best frame can improve keeper rates substantially, even without IS.

R2

rrc1967 wrote:

that's PF (purple fringing) something different.

But yes, the 50mm 1.8 wasn't APO worthy .. then again what do you expect for $125.

I was suppose to say purple fringing but I always thought any type of color fringing is CA.  Thanks for that!

Regrettable way of using what's otherwise a very good camera. Try properly focusing using its touch display, just tap at where you want it to focus.

Francis A wrote:

rrc1967 wrote:

that's PF (purple fringing) something different.

But yes, the 50mm 1.8 wasn't APO worthy .. then again what do you expect for $125.

I was suppose to say purple fringing but I always thought any type of color fringing is CA. Thanks for that!

CA expresses itself in different colors.  PF is CA.  We see it on edges because that's where it is most noticeable but it's throughout the image.  There's always a secondary color like green/magenta which if I remember is longitudinal CA.

Proper exposure and lens profiles eliminate the problem.

I can't post an image right now but the EF 50mm STM is very nice lens when coupled with M50.  You'll spend hundreds more for very little gain.

OzarkAggie wrote:

Francis A wrote:

rrc1967 wrote:

that's PF (purple fringing) something different.

But yes, the 50mm 1.8 wasn't APO worthy .. then again what do you expect for $125.

I was suppose to say purple fringing but I always thought any type of color fringing is CA. Thanks for that!

CA expresses itself in different colors. PF is CA. We see it on edges because that's where it is most noticeable but it's throughout the image. There's always a secondary color like green/magenta which if I remember is longitudinal CA.

Proper exposure and lens profiles eliminate the problem.

I can't post an image right now but the EF 50mm STM is very nice lens when coupled with M50. You'll spend hundreds more for very little gain.

Have you eliminated PF on wider apertures? I don't know but I can't seem to fix it in-cam or in post. I do watch my exposure and sometimes I underexpose but not on an extreme level. I seem to do a better job in post that way but PF on wider apertures is just bad.

Francis A wrote:

OzarkAggie wrote:

Francis A wrote:

rrc1967 wrote:

that's PF (purple fringing) something different.

But yes, the 50mm 1.8 wasn't APO worthy .. then again what do you expect for $125.

I was suppose to say purple fringing but I always thought any type of color fringing is CA. Thanks for that!

CA expresses itself in different colors. PF is CA. We see it on edges because that's where it is most noticeable but it's throughout the image. There's always a secondary color like green/magenta which if I remember is longitudinal CA.

Proper exposure and lens profiles eliminate the problem.

I can't post an image right now but the EF 50mm STM is very nice lens when coupled with M50. You'll spend hundreds more for very little gain.

Have you eliminated PF on wider apertures? I don't know but I can't seem to fix it in-cam or in post. I do watch my exposure and sometimes I underexpose but not on an extreme level. I seem to do a better job in post that way but PF on wider apertures is just bad.

I just took a few shots.  Text on a back lighted screen looks okay.  Then I shot a black lampshade with ventilation slots near the base.  @1.8 I get some nasty fringing in the highest contrast black shade pure white light.   The fringe can be tamed but not eliminated by adjusting the Red-Cyan axis AND the Green-Magenta axis.  Both have a slight affect so in the extreme there's a combination of errors.

I shot some 1.8 at a lake Friday.  Bare branches against an almost white background but the light was soft.  No fringing. I'd post but I don't have my desktop on the net.

I'm also shooting JPEG so DR isn't an issue for a new style I am developing.   I've been looking at some old film and I find it to be softer.   So perhaps we're all pushing the limits of image capture.