EOS M & 22mm upgrade equivalents

knulp

knulp

Suspended / Banned
Messages
48
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
No
Hi, I love my little eos m and 22mm but it has its limitations so I'm looking for an upgrade. Main thing I don't like about it is the slightly plasticky unfilmlike colours compared to Fuji for example. Slow focus not tooo much of a problem for me but I'd obviously like better.

Things I like about it are the small size and, well, the lens. It seems almost unique, very sharp even wide open, nice close focus, tiny etc.

Obvious upgrade seems to be the fuji x100 series but close up ability does not seem its strong point and I had real problems getting consistently good results from an xe1 and 35mm 1.4 ,though it was stunning when I (rarely)nailed the focus and exposure ( I'm still a beginner) Not sure if x100 seies is any more beginner friendly?

Other options, ricoh gr maybe? Love the idea of this but too wide for all round use maybe?

Only other option I've come up with is the sony a6000 but from what Ive read the mid priced lenses are not as good, even if they were comparable in spec, to the 22mm .

Ahh, nearly forgot, how about the new Canon M3? Would that be much if an upgrade image wise though?

Budget is about £600.

Any advice greatly appreciated.
 
As you've identified the X100 series is likely your best bet on this I'd say. What aspect of the 'close up ability' was lacking for you? There's been significant improvements X100 -> X100s -> X100T in a number of areas.

I myself have gone from a 5D3 to an X100T just recently having owned the original X100 years ago and most recently the M3 + 22 Combo (which I initially tried as a portable alternative to the 5D3). Obviously - one is a system camera, one is not, so you have to think whether you'd be comfortable with a fixed lens too.
 
Thanks for the advice Furtim. I've heard the x100s is very soft wide open at close focus. The 22mm eos m is very sharp.
I particularly like to take close up shots with a wider context.

I pretty much stick to one lens so if x100 is good for close up I would be happy.
 
I very much love the EOS M3 especially with the viewfinder, and you get to be able to use the excellent 22mm lens with it.
 
Yes, I'm very tempted by the m3. Trouble is you can't just buy the body and its a lot of money for something that I don't know will be any better image wise than what I've got. I'm also kind of enamoured by the gritty yet sharp and three dimensional images I see from fuji and ricoh gr. Hmmmmm...
 
Last edited:
knulp said:
Thanks for the advice Furtim. I've heard the x100s is very soft wide open at close focus. The 22mm eos m is very sharp.
I particularly like to take close up shots with a wider context.

I pretty much stick to one lens so if x100 is good for close up I would be happy.
Click to expand...

I happen to have both cameras within reach at the moment, even if I don't have the means to get the images off and uploaded, so I did a very rough test - both cameras at f/2, framed to match the minimum focussing distance of the longest (the M3 in this case, as the Fuji could get closer), Aperture priority etc. The M3 shot at 1/4000 ISO 100, the X100T at 1/14000 at ISO 200 (although I noticed I had the KodaChrome film simulation selected on the Fuji /doh) and then zoomed in to max on the Fuji and matched again on the Canon, and then a simple iPhone shot uploaded. There is a plastic cover on the Fuji, but I don't think it makes much of a difference. I did some shots stopped down, and they looked identical in terms of sharpness, but as this is hardly scientific, I'm not going to faff around and load those.

It does look like the Fuji is softer wide open close up. If you're interested, I'll check the raw files later, but on the face of it, I'd agree with you.


IMG_1605 (1).JPG
 
Thanks for doing that Furtim :) Very interesting indeed. I think fuji recommends stopping down to f 4 for close ups. But it seems the x100 will focus closer than the m3 so that would make up the ground between the two in background blur in theory. Sooo not sure if that 2 stop difference would be that significant especially as the fuji can shoot higher ISO without too much grain.
Just a beginner so apologies if I'm way off here.
 
Last edited:
Or if you want UK stock with warranty and don't need the EVF

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EOS-M3-Digital-Camera-BODY-ONLY-/121737377559?hash=item1c581cf717

Finally, the image quality on the M3 is much better than the M in my opinion. Don't forget for colour reproduction that this depends a lot on either shooting in raw and tweaking to your preference in Lightroom/ACR or making sure you choose the right colour presets in the camera for in-camera JPEG. But these options are available also on your current EOS M so if you haven't messed around with them, you should try.
 
Last edited:
Many thanks Jolyon, will look into those options for just the body.
Very interesting you say the IQ is better than the original M, I've heard others say there is not a lot in it other than higher ISO abilities. I find the M very grainy over 800.
I always shoot raw and use canon's own software DPP I think its called. Colour tweaking seems very limited and rather unsubtle to my eyes but I have a lot still to learn about raw editing.
 
Went for a refurb x100s in the end, was a very good price with voucher code from fuji. Should be here tomorrow. Will be interesting to see how it compares to the EOS M, very different beasts I'm sure.
Many thanks again for all the advice.
 
Seems crazy to buy a new camera because you prefer the colour output! You could probably have fixed it for free using a picture style, I have a Fuji 400h profile that I use a lot on both my M and 5d mkii and I think it produces much nicer output than any of the standard profiles also saves faffing about on the PC which I find dull!
 
Fair point. Got the x100s today and even though I have a lot of learning to do but I've already got a few pics that are just alive with color in a way that I could never get with the canon

DSCF8937c by blazingstarre, on Flickr
 
knulp said:
Hi, I love my little eos m and 22mm but it has its limitations so I'm looking for an upgrade. Main thing I don't like about it is the slightly plasticky unfilmlike colours compared to Fuji for example. Slow focus not tooo much of a problem for me but I'd obviously like better.

Things I like about it are the small size and, well, the lens. It seems almost unique, very sharp even wide open, nice close focus, tiny etc.

Obvious upgrade seems to be the fuji x100 series but close up ability does not seem its strong point and I had real problems getting consistently good results from an xe1 and 35mm 1.4 ,though it was stunning when I (rarely)nailed the focus and exposure ( I'm still a beginner) Not sure if x100 seies is any more beginner friendly?

Other options, ricoh gr maybe? Love the idea of this but too wide for all round use maybe?

Only other option I've come up with is the sony a6000 but from what Ive read the mid priced lenses are not as good, even if they were comparable in spec, to the 22mm .

Ahh, nearly forgot, how about the new Canon M3? Would that be much if an upgrade image wise though?

Budget is about £600.

Any advice greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
Confused by the "unfilm like colours"?

If you shoot raw you'll have control over that and can tweak to your hearts desire!
 
a1ex2001 said:
Seems crazy to buy a new camera because you prefer the colour output! You could probably have fixed it for free using a picture style, I have a Fuji 400h profile that I use a lot on both my M and 5d mkii and I think it produces much nicer output than any of the standard profiles also saves faffing about on the PC which I find dull!
Click to expand...

odd jim said:
Confused by the "unfilm like colours"?

If you shoot raw you'll have control over that and can tweak to your hearts desire!
Click to expand...

Different sensors, different lenses, different firmware all contribute to a certain uniqueness in how even raw files are captured with variation over the colour calibration, noise patterns etc and this is rarely linear in nature so can't be fully emulated by a set of pre-defined 'slider values' so I don't think it's so 'crazy'

Companies such as VSCO have gone someway to addressing this by building their presets in a way so that they are specific to one camera model but they are still limited to linear adjustments on the whole.

I loved the look of pictures taken with my original 5D with the 135 f/2 lens for example. They had a certain feel to them that I was unable to reproduce on other shots in Lightroom, and never needed any significant PP.

My subsequent 1D3 and 5D3 never really hit that same button, for sure they took great images with plenty of scope for post processing in terms of colours, look and feel etc, but there was no 'signature' feel that I could hook into.

I found the another hook when I first bought the original x100, but the camera was flawed and unfriendly to use back when it first came out, and it's too early days with latest model for me to say.

But, I do understand where the OP is coming from!
 
Probably a lot of it is just due to my lack of experience in PP especially since I only used DPP for canon. I can't imagine how I'd even begin to manipulate the canon files to make them look as organic and vibrant as fuji though. Not saying better just clearly different to my eyes.
Anyway the x100s obviously has a lot of other advantages in other areas over the eos m too so It's clearly an upgrade to my mind at least.
 
The soft focus "quirk" with the Fuji X100 only exists at f2, it goes away at f2.8, for me anyway it's no big deal, so long as you are aware of it.
 
I have the Canon EOS M and M2 I also have Fuji X100T , Xpro 1 and XT1. I much prefer the output from the Fuji's. Don't get me wrong I also love the M's there are definitely much more pocketable, especially with the 22mm attached.
 
knulp said:
Probably a lot of it is just due to my lack of experience in PP especially since I only used DPP for canon. I can't imagine how I'd even begin to manipulate the canon files to make them look as organic and vibrant as fuji though. Not saying better just clearly different to my eyes.
Anyway the x100s obviously has a lot of other advantages in other areas over the eos m too so It's clearly an upgrade to my mind at least.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day if your getting the results you want it doesn't really matter! PP is a pain in the backside and for me something I try and avoid at all costs I like taking pictures not sitting in front of my PC playing with them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top