M100 to M50? Worth upgrade?

dan the man p wrote:

Mike_57 wrote:

Hi there,

I am new to photography and know my basics and own the M100 with several lenses (kit 15-45, 11-22, prime 22mm and 18-150mm) and am wondering if if worth upgrading to M50?

I am mainly shooting my daughter with the 22mm indoor low light and not satisfied with the IQ. Somehow I don't manage to have a sharp image without any noise :/

The only few clear images would be with the flash and pretty close from her. Any of you experience that as well? If anyone has tips to edit and remove the noise I would be happy. I am removing a bit of noise in Lightroom and also use Topaz Sharpen but somehow the result is not satisfying. The image is sharper but also too "smooth" as well.

So my question is is the M50 worth upgrading for better low light quality? Or is it going to be exactly the same? I am aware of the limitation of the 4k crop video and will still be happy with the 1080p and the viewfinder could be useful.

I am also tempted to buy the prime 32mm 1.4 with M50 for portrait pictures. Please let me know what you think and if it worth upgrading it or if I coul just get the 32mm lens only with my M100? (by trading the kit lens 15-45 and 18-150 since I don't really use them much).

Thanks!
Mike

The M50 won't really give you any IQ advantage over the M100.

True.

The autofocus may be a little faster, but I'm not really familiar enough with the M100 to know.

The 32 f/1.4 would make a big difference over your 22mm for low light photography.

The maximum aperture is only a single stop faster (2 vs 1.4). Being a longer focal length, you will need to use about a stop faster shutter speed. Handheld in low light, differences should be slim to none.

Alternatively, the Sigma trio are also great f/1.4 primes for EOS M. Another huge improvement would be to use DxO PhotoLab 5 or PureRaw with Deep Prime noise reduction. I can get very good results at ISO 6400 with it. Others will tell you that they can go even higher, which is true, but I keep it limited to 6400 because other aspects of IQ (sharpness, color rendition, dynamic range) also start to drop off quickly at 6400 and above.

In terms of settings and techniques, in low light you still need to make sure your shutter speed is fast enough to get sharp results. In Av mode and auto ISO, the camera will try to pick the minimum shutter speed to avoid blur due to camera shake, but if there is subject motion, you may still need to increase the shutter speed. For shooting people in these situations, I normally use Tv or manual mode with auto ISO and set the shutter speed to 1/100 sec or faster. Again, a fast lens and DxO Deep Prime can help you still get great results in such situations.

dan the man p wrote:

tamaraw35 wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

The M50 won't really give you any IQ advantage over the M100.

True.

The autofocus may be a little faster, but I'm not really familiar enough with the M100 to know.

The 32 f/1.4 would make a big difference over your 22mm for low light photography.

The maximum aperture is only a single stop faster (2 vs 1.4). Being a longer focal length, you will need to use about a stop faster shutter speed. Handheld in low light, differences should be slim to none.

Not if subject motion is the limiting factor for shutter speed, which is often the case for children.

Fair point. I meant for noise performance and overall image quality since that seems to be OP's concern.

DocetLector wrote:

As there is no flash socket on the M 100 and the in body flash of this camera is weak and gives a harsh light it is better to make the change.

You could experiment with using a diffuser over it or angling it up for more bounce off the ceiling.

I gave up shooting my family indoor without flash a long time ago. I`m using a efx 270 on my M6 either with a diffusor or bouncing the flash up to the ceiling. The 32mm won`t help you for closer distance because at 1.4 you might not get enough depth of field.

Good point.

Just look at the attached image: even on f4 there is not enough DOF to get both kids and the dogs in proper focus.

Try to get a good balance between ambient light and flash.

Focus seems to be set somewhere around the first girl's face or hands, which is much closer to the camera. You would probably have better luck if you focused somewhere between the girls or maybe on the one in the rear. DOF will get wider at the same aperture as your focus distance gets further away.

The image you posted wouldn't be great as a professional portrait, but I think it's perfectly acceptable as a candid family picture; it captures a moment and a memory to look back on. The focus issue on the second girl's face is not that noticeable when viewed at regular sizes on-screen or even small prints.

Mike_57 wrote:

Hi there,

I am new to photography and know my basics and own the M100 with several lenses (kit 15-45, 11-22, prime 22mm and 18-150mm) and am wondering if if worth upgrading to M50?

I am mainly shooting my daughter with the 22mm indoor low light and not satisfied with the IQ. Somehow I don't manage to have a sharp image without any noise :/

It's basically impossible on any camera to take low light photos without any noise that are sharp across the whole scene. You might want to adjust your expectations there. Or share some photos that you aren't satisfied with and we could make some suggestions?

The only few clear images would be with the flash and pretty close from her. Any of you experience that as well? If anyone has tips to edit and remove the noise I would be happy. I am removing a bit of noise in Lightroom and also use Topaz Sharpen but somehow the result is not satisfying. The image is sharper but also too "smooth" as well.

That's the problem, heavy noise reduction often removes detail and reduces sharpness as it smears the image. DXO's prime algorithm works better than most others I have seen but does take some time to process.

So my question is is the M50 worth upgrading for better low light quality? Or is it going to be exactly the same? I am aware of the limitation of the 4k crop video and will still be happy with the 1080p and the viewfinder could be useful.

Image quality should be virtually indistinguishable afaik.

I am also tempted to buy the prime 32mm 1.4 with M50 for portrait pictures.

The sigma 56mm is more of a traditional portrait length but the 32mm can do portraits and will be a more versatile walking around lens. There is also the sigma 30mm which is not quite as sharp (but still very good) and much more affordable than the Canon 32mm.

Please let me know what you think and if it worth upgrading it or if I coul just get the 32mm lens only with my M100? (by trading the kit lens 15-45 and 18-150 since I don't really use them much).

Thanks!
Mike

Unless you want the viewfinder and slightly faster AF, I wouldn't bother. I own an m50 but still use my m10 with the older sensor plenty because of the form factor.

Mike_57 wrote:

Hi there,

I am new to photography and know my basics and own the M100 with several lenses (kit 15-45, 11-22, prime 22mm and 18-150mm) and am wondering if if worth upgrading to M50?

I am mainly shooting my daughter with the 22mm indoor low light and not satisfied with the IQ. Somehow I don't manage to have a sharp image without any noise :/

The only few clear images would be with the flash and pretty close from her. Any of you experience that as well? If anyone has tips to edit and remove the noise I would be happy. I am removing a bit of noise in Lightroom and also use Topaz Sharpen but somehow the result is not satisfying. The image is sharper but also too "smooth" as well.

So my question is is the M50 worth upgrading for better low light quality? Or is it going to be exactly the same? I am aware of the limitation of the 4k crop video and will still be happy with the 1080p and the viewfinder could be useful.

I am also tempted to buy the prime 32mm 1.4 with M50 for portrait pictures. Please let me know what you think and if it worth upgrading it or if I coul just get the 32mm lens only with my M100? (by trading the kit lens 15-45 and 18-150 since I don't really use them much).

Thanks!
Mike

HI there.

There's a lot of technical input above... However, I think, without actually seeing your shots it might be not very helpful. It'd be easier to give a better advice, if you post at least one image you like and an image that you think could be improved by a different camera or a faster lens. With exif data

DocetLector wrote:

As there is no flash socket on the M 100 and the in body flash of this camera is weak and gives a harsh light it is better to make the change.

I gave up shooting my family indoor without flash a long time ago. I`m using a efx 270 on my M6 either with a diffusor or bouncing the flash up to the ceiling. The 32mm won`t help you for closer distance because at 1.4 you might not get enough depth of field.

Just look at the attached image: even on f4 there is not enough DOF to get both kids and the dogs in proper focus.

Your image is front focused and some of your DoF got wasted.  Look at the very bottom of the image and you will see that the platter in front of your daughter is in focus

Try to get a good balance between ambient light and flash.

You did a pretty good job balancing the exposure.  Don't be afraid to take manual control and bump up your ISO quite a bit.  High ISO with flash has dramatically less noise than high ISO with just ambient light.

M6 + 32mm f1.4

Mike_57 wrote:

Hi there,

I am new to photography and know my basics and own the M100 with several lenses (kit 15-45, 11-22, prime 22mm and 18-150mm) and am wondering if if worth upgrading to M50?

I am mainly shooting my daughter with the 22mm indoor low light and not satisfied with the IQ. Somehow I don't manage to have a sharp image without any noise :/

Could you please post some sample photos, or at the very least, provide more details on your camera settings?

The only few clear images would be with the flash and pretty close from her. Any of you experience that as well? If anyone has tips to edit and remove the noise I would be happy. I am removing a bit of noise in Lightroom and also use Topaz Sharpen but somehow the result is not satisfying. The image is sharper but also too "smooth" as well.

So my question is is the M50 worth upgrading for better low light quality? Or is it going to be exactly the same? I am aware of the limitation of the 4k crop video and will still be happy with the 1080p and the viewfinder could be useful.

Image quality will be identical as both cameras are using the same image sensor.

I am also tempted to buy the prime 32mm 1.4 with M50 for portrait pictures. Please let me know what you think and if it worth upgrading it or if I coul just get the 32mm lens only with my M100? (by trading the kit lens 15-45 and 18-150 since I don't really use them much).

The 32mm f/1.4 is optically better than the 22mm f/2.0, but it is hard to say if it will fix your issues without more background data.

Thanks!
Mike

Mike_57 wrote:

Hi there,

I am new to photography and know my basics and own the M100 with several lenses (kit 15-45, 11-22, prime 22mm and 18-150mm) and am wondering if if worth upgrading to M50?

The two major differences between your M100 and the M50 are the hotshoe and the EVF. They share the same sensor, so they should be equally sharp with the same lenses. The hotshoe allows you to use a powerful flashgun, bouncing the light off the ceiling or walls, but that kills the spontaneity of the session. (You didn't say how old your daughter is, or whether these were portrait sessions or attempts to picture her at play or what.) The EVF can help with precise framing, but it can give a helicopter or dad's eye perspective if you're not careful. Using the flip screen of either camera can bring it down to her eye level, giving a much more inclusive perspective.

I am mainly shooting my daughter with the 22mm indoor low light and not satisfied with the IQ. Somehow I don't manage to have a sharp image without any noise.

This is difficult if you want to include the environment. A fast aperture lens focussed on her eyes will put most of the picture out of focus. Stopping down to get more of the picture in focus means flash or the risk of movement and/or noise from a high ISO setting. Like most people who have tried it, I do like the Deep Prime noise reduction of DxO PhotoLab, which seems to give at least a couple of stops increase in the usable upper limit to the ISO setting.

The only few clear images would be with the flash and pretty close from her. Any of you experience that as well? If anyone has tips to edit and remove the noise I would be happy. I am removing a bit of noise in Lightroom and also use Topaz Sharpen but somehow the result is not satisfying. The image is sharper but also too "smooth" as well.

So my question is is the M50 worth upgrading for better low light quality? Or is it going to be exactly the same? I am aware of the limitation of the 4k crop video and will still be happy with the 1080p and the viewfinder could be useful.

I am also tempted to buy the prime 32mm 1.4 with M50 for portrait pictures. Please let me know what you think and if it worth upgrading it or if I coul just get the 32mm lens only with my M100? (by trading the kit lens 15-45 and 18-150 since I don't really use them much).

Thanks!
Mike

DocetLector wrote:

I don`t think it is front focussed, the platter and the eyes are more or less at the same distance, just look at the eyelashes, I think they are in focus. That`s where I put the focus point.

And that is the problem

I just wanted to show that a fast lens is not always the only solution, especially with 2 or more objects not at the same distance there might not be enough DOF .

Half of your depth of field is in front of the nearest child and is wasted.

DocetLector wrote:

I don`t think it is front focussed, the platter and the eyes are more or less at the same distance, just look at the eyelashes, I think they are in focus. That`s where I put the focus point.

We aren't saying that the camera messed up. If you set your focus point on the closer girl, it worked exactly as it was told.

We are just saying that you could have been more strategic with your focus. Setting focus between your subjects, perhaps biased a little to the rear, would have captured more with the same aperture. Putting your focus point up close shrinks DOF and wastes the portion in front of your subject.

It's not a big deal though, obviously you got a nice picture of those kids