topic Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII? in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

slinky — Fri, 01 Apr 2022 06:18:55 GMT

I'm a bit concerned, having thought that getting the m200 and using other lenses I have, the kit lens 15mm-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM and perhaps buying the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Lens would make for a great street kit. Taking some photos, the quality was very sharp and very nice. But many of the photos seemed to come out dark or like there is a haze. And then I noticed there was noise, banding and distortion, especially in lower lighted areas. Hence I wonder it's the glass that is really creating some of the mediocre images and distortions.

The first photo is one of the better ones. It's unedited and the colors and overall look is crisp. But it's not like a got much detail from the ducks, which I'd usually get with the old RX100 M1 I used to shoot with before it died.

Now look at the second photo. The house came out gorgeous, crisp and you can see the side of it in the photo I uploaded. But the tree next to it which had darker spots had noticeable blotches and distortions. Looks terrible. The third image with the duck is OK but there is a lot of noise in the background with fuzzy detail.

The fourth photo is better although, it too, seems dark and the details are lost in the dark quality. So I'm wondering if the G7X M3 would have performed far better due to the 1.8-2.8 lens that it has. Both have stabilization (m200 in the lens) and I'm wondering if it's the shooter or it really is the glass that won't produce the similar results. Many of the 'pros' I saw liked the m200 because they can use it with other lenses. But I'm noticing also that there isn't any EF-M lens that is versatle like the G7X as well - a 24-100 going from 1.8-2.8. Not the deepest Zoom but far better than 45mm at 6.3. It's the 6.3 that is making me wonder whether I'm losing so much detail and all these photos are dark.

Thank you all for any thoughts, suggestions, opinions.

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

Tronhard — Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:09:13 GMT

The images you show are taken in less than ideal conditions, and with the downsizing of images required to show on this site, it is not easy to see the details to which you allude. Perhaps provide a cropped image of the areas for which you have a concern, along with the EXIF data for each.

Did you get the M200 new or was it used or refurbished?

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

Waddizzle — Fri, 01 Apr 2022 10:54:39 GMT

Not the best of shooting conditions. I bought the EF-M 22mm for my M3 a few years ago, and have not removed it since. It is my goto pocket camera.

BTW, do not expect distant objects and subjects to be captures in high detail, most especially when you are using shorter focal lengths.

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

slinky — Fri, 01 Apr 2022 11:49:54 GMT

@Waddizzle - wow, that's a terrific photo. I don't doubt that the shooter has a lot to do with it. 🙂 But I do wonder whether the kit glass aperture only going to 3.5 at the low end creates major challenges as compared to the G7X, which I really love but for the fixed in-camera lens. (My RX worked for a long time but ultimately failed when the lens mechanism wouldn't open/shut properly.) I've also seen the focus issues with video that led me in this direction too.

So here is an interesting discovery. I went in to the raw file because I figured best to edit the source - and the difference between the out of camera jpeg and the raw is astonishing. The first image is the JPEG with arrows pointing to the awful spots. Looking at the raw (I brightened shadows on all images), it's not even comparable. I didn't even have to use the arrows because the awful distortion is patently obvious. This is likely out of camera jpg distortion and I guess it makes sense that darker images and bushes will distort the worst straight out of camera.

Here is the EXIF Information

Canon EOS M200
EF-M15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM
6000x4000
Exposure 1/500 sec
Aperture F3.5
ISO 320
Flash did not fire

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

slinky — Fri, 01 Apr 2022 12:01:07 GMT

Here is a close-up. It's not even comparable. I'll let you guys figure out which is the raw and which is the jpeg out of camera!

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

slinky — Fri, 01 Apr 2022 12:03:44 GMT

@Waddizzle - what do you do when you need or desire a little more zoom out of your camera? I do like the 15-45 and wish it was just a little longer - although it is not nearly as compact as the G7X series and I can acknowledge that. Also wish the lens was brighter and it doesn't seem that there are any comparable options.

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

ebiggs1 — Fri, 01 Apr 2022 14:56:52 GMT

Just a bit more processing and your shot looks like this. Not bad really.

If I had the Raw file I could do even better. When you edit these do a WB adjustment in Levels first. Then check the histogram. Yours did not extend all the way to the right. So this was not a perfectly exposed picture or at least not as good as it could be. You can fix that in post especially in a Raw file.

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

ebiggs1 — Fri, 01 Apr 2022 15:14:50 GMT

" The third image with the duck is OK but there is a lot of noise in the background with fuzzy detail."

Again given the Raw file this can be a nice photo. Remember great photos are made in post not in the camera.

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

ebiggs1 — Fri, 01 Apr 2022 15:33:08 GMT

" I'm wondering if the G7X M3 would have performed far better due to the 1.8-2.8 lens that it has."

In a word, no.

"I'm noticing also that there isn't any EF-M lens that is versatle like the G7X..."

It is very difficult to make and very costly, large zoom range lense that are any good. That's why you don't see too many of this type lens. The G7X Mk III uses tricks to get the zoom range, Optical and digital. Usually digital isn't as good as optical. It is basically the same thing as you cropping your shot in post. Any lens made for the M series is most like better than the lens that comes with the G7X Mk III. That said, I know not exactly where you thought my comments might lead you, I would prefer the G7X Mk II if I were buying. I have a G1X that I use all the time.

I am not and have never been a fan of the M series and now the way Canon is going even less of a fan. But you have what you have so you need to make it work. Perhaps a class in how to post edit. Also, d/l the free from Canon DPP4. I use Photoshop but the latest version of DPP4 is really good. I recommend it.

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

slinky — Fri, 01 Apr 2022 20:16:39 GMT

Thanks for all of the information confirming what I had thought when I first investigated the purchase. The reason I went with the m series - as much as I was hesitant, was being able to get the m200 new (not import) for a tad under $500 (which is even difficult to get at $550) and that it could serve as an excellent sized pocket camera. Having the 300mm glass and several other lenses allows me to better learn this craft. Having a small camera with a great IQ spoiled me a bit but I did experiment a lot with learning how to use different modes, e.g. aperture priority, shutter, etc. But still, there were limitations I had that were not apparent with the Canon xSi that I still have - the first that moved from compact flash to SD card - and the photos from it still look great. But it's big, heavy, and not something you can just grab and go during times you can't have all that bulk.

You're right that I do need to do better post work. Yours is really excellent - but I can still see the crappy JPEG smudge and noise that exists immediately. It's just the nature of what it is and what it can produce based on what goes into it. Thanks for your advice. However, I was just playing around to see what I could produce quickly. Even the raw photo itself of the house with a little more put into the edit shows a tree and bush and gate that is far more crisp. This could probably be better if I hadn't left all to auto - I just wanted to see what this camera can do using point and shoot leaving everything to the camera IQ, which doesn't always get it right. (Especially on the water, where it misses the ducks and is sometimes confused by the water ripples.)

What I really dislike about the m200 is the inane decision to remove the modes from the rotational buttons that already exist. It's so dumb to have 3 settings for camera and video and just leave the rest of the wheel blank. Dumb, dumb, dumb even second time around. But I'll try to use programming to set up what I can and the body and base of the camera can produce virtually all of what I need - mostly family, friends, landscape, travel photos, etc. It's not meant to do super slomo out of it (I'll do that in a video editor if needed).

I went out shooting auto again and the results are much better, crisp, and means I'll just need to learn more about the camera and the gear I have. The 15-45mm length is limiting but it did capture enough at a distance to crop and pull some crisp detail. I'll be getting the 22mm f2 pancake and think that will be a lot of fun to shoot with and will live with carrying another lens, perhaps the kit, if I anticipate that I'll really want to zoom to some degree.

Thank you all of you for making me feel far better about this purchase and realizing that my gear actually produced better photos than I thought - and totally forgot not to look at the out of the box jpegs. I hope to contribute here more when I have the chance.

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

Tronhard — Fri, 01 Apr 2022 21:53:29 GMT

I have 3 EOS M5 bodies that I consider to be the flagship bodies for the M series in terms of stills photography. The M50's are more aligned to hybrid and vloggers. Two benefits of the M5 are the EVF (better for longer lenses and stabilizing for hand-held shooting), and the EV dial on the top, something missing on the M50. All other M-series do not have a built-in EVF, although some have a bulky and fragile add-on unit.

I have most of the lenses for the M-series and if you are looking for more range, then I would suggest either the EF-M 18-150, which pairs well with the excellent 11-22; or the 55-200 which would be a good addition for your 15-45, which I also have. The M series gets a bit of flak, but personally I find it perfectly serviceable for what I consider its intended market slot - that is small, inconspicuous cameras good for street photography, travel, hiking etc. I got mine because of an injury that meant I could not carry my normal heavy DSLRs and lenses. After an operation I am fully functional again, however I still use these bodies today for the purposes I mentioned.

I always maintain that that the critical things are what you are going to shoot and what you are going to produce. It takes a much higher budget to shoot specialist subjects like wildlife (especially macro predators) or create large, detailed Fine Art prints, compared to publishing on social media or display on digital devices.

Here are a few images from the M5's with a mix of lenses: all hand-held in available light.

1. View of Mt Ruapehu, EOS M5 EF-M 18-150 @ 24mm, f/9, 1/1000sec, ISO-200

Sunrise over the Central Plateau: EOS M5 EF-M 11-22 @ 22mm, f/6.3, 1/40sec, ISO-200

Close-up of lichen and mushroom in the forests EOS M5, 18-150 @ 100mm, f/9, 1/50sec, ISO-200 Canon EOS M5, EF-M 18-135mm@ 100mm, F/9, 1/50sec, ISO-200

Before the Dawn: The Moon and Venus: EOS M5, 15-45mm @ 31mm, f/9, 1/13sec, ISO500

Rather than post a myriad if images I shall give you a link to a blog I wrote on a trip to the Tongariro National Park, in NZ's central North Island - it is centred around a volcanic plateau with live volcanoes and is a great hike to do, although one must be careful as the weather can change at the drop of a hat. This is a link to the blog on my MS OneDrive:
2019: Tongariro National Park Trip when the link opens (give it time) click on OPEN on the top left of the screen to see it properly. You can then zoom in to make the document more readable by clicking on the Zoom function on the bottom middle and selecting Page Width.

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

slinky — Fri, 01 Apr 2022 22:22:04 GMT

Stunning shots all at high f-stop. The darkness I'm seeing is more the IQ than probably the lens. All of these photos are not just beautiful to view but are very inspiring. Thank you for your suggestions - the 55-200 in particular sounds terrific. Hope you're feeling well. I'm getting on in the years and have wear and tear on the ankles and knees and the compact was another knowing compromise. Would love the viewfinder like was on the new Sony RX series but it's not even on their only affordable rival (the ZV-1) and hence the m200 is none the worse without one. Perhaps in time I'll get a second camera to replace the old xSi. Thank you for your blog. This has really been a terrific conversation with all of you.

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

Tronhard — Fri, 01 Apr 2022 22:46:59 GMT

IQ is made up of many things: lens, sensor, stabilization and, of course, the photographer.

If you can get a second-hand M5 in good condition, or even an M50 MkII, then they both have a built-in EVF and are reasonably priced. If you have joint issues, then the M5 or 50 are both good choices along with the appropriate lenses for your purposes. Since my shots were of landscapes or close-up they tend to be in the mid-aperture range to get the DoF, but also because the lenses seem to perform best a stop or so above their smallest f/value.

I have the Sony RX-10MkIV and with a 1" stacked CMOS sensor giving an equivalent FoV range of 24-600mm, I consider it to be the best bridge camera on the market at the moment, but it has gone up in price (at least in NZ) and while it is weather resistant and a fabulous Zeiss lens, the Sony menu is a nightmare! I configured what buttons and dials I could so I don't have to go into it any more. It is the camera I take when I want to have just one camera and may have a lot of different focal ranges to deal with.

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

ebiggs1 — Sat, 02 Apr 2022 18:52:46 GMT

Again your jpg is pretty small but this is how I would have edited it. Processing the Raw file would be very much better.

Your histogram was spot on.

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

slinky — Mon, 04 Apr 2022 05:07:43 GMT

@Tronhard - I much appreciate your recommendations for a step-up camera. PS - The Sony RX100 series suffered from a really poor menu (and still could be better.)

@ebiggs1 - Thank you! That was another test photo using the 22mm lens, which can take some really fantastic photos. This was a tough shot for the camera to handle because of the sky. That shot I was able to isolate the squirrel in the tree from about 15 feet away. However, the video I tried to take was terrible. The camera compensated for the sky and turned the entire foreground very dark, rendering all practically silhouettes. I'll be able to handle that with some time getting familiar with the camera but I'm now thrilled to have it and extremely glad I didn't get the VZ-1. The pancake lens still doesn't render the camera small enough to truly put in a pants pocket but with phones getting so crazy good, my next phone will be my "pants pocket' camera and this can easily be my jacket pocket rifle to go to since no matter how good phones get, the physics is what it is. I just wish these cameras sometime had half the IQ that mobile phones have. It's all good and your work has me very inspired!

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

Tronhard — Mon, 04 Apr 2022 05:15:43 GMT

Mobile phones are physically at a huge disadvantage compared to dedicated cameras. For a start, their sensors and optics are absolutely miniscule. For example, a cell phone could fit into a FF Sensor about 30 times! What makes them effective is computational photography, pioneered by Prof Marc LeVoy, late of Stanford University and spent time as a lead at Google Optics. That said, some of that AI is appearing in modern cameras - for example, the Canon RF 24-240 lens, has pretty massive firmware corrections going on by the time you see the images in the viewfinder or see the JPG files. If, however, one views the unprocessed and uncorrected RAW images, the wide angle images look pretty scary. I suspect we will see a lot more of that in the future.

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

ebiggs1 — Mon, 04 Apr 2022 13:51:17 GMT

" I just wish these cameras sometime had half the IQ that mobile phones have."

Try making an 8x10 from a iphone.

Re: Mistake purchasing the m200 over the g7x mIII?

slinky — Mon, 11 Apr 2022 04:24:09 GMT

Epilogue.

I ended up getting an EF-S to EF-M adapter - aftermarket because sadly it seems Canon has really gouge pricing on that piece. I completely respect the costs of technology but have no idea why this adapter should cost $200. Fortunately it seems to work with the 55-270mm zoom lens. I'm pleased to say that I now have a full range of capture with the 22mm f2, the 15-45 kit lens, the 50mm for the EF-S, and now this which extends far beyond the standard G7X zoom and far more useful.

That said, some items that were troubling and most I can ge over - although I'm thrilled to have bought this small mirrorless instead of th e G7X. Exposure indoor without flash was inconsistent based on lighting and video focusing is really not great. I had to use the manual focus often and am grateful to have it since th G7X Mark III has all sorts of reports and that's not correctible like it is here. When the video is in focus, it can look superb as the lens is sharp and some of the colors can be caught well.

Not so great is wondering why on earth Canon decided to limit this camera to 24p instead of the standard 30p. I had no problems with overheating. Even though there is real crop going on, sometimes it was nice having a zoomed in feeling of intimate scenes and it worked. But again the focus was finicky and I need to spend more time with the camera to figure out the best way to manage focus, which I think is possible. But still no reason for not enabling 30p in the software.

Many of the photos were soft indoors without a flash and I think my RX100 didn't struggle nearly as much without a flash. It seemed to capture most things without issue, almost always super sharp. Not always the case here. I do have the feeling that part of this is in knowing (or not fully appreciating) how to use better glass to its potential and am guessing the some settings would have been capable of producing better results. If someone can relay to Canon that it's absolutely moronic not to include a firmware update to enable 30p 4k video on this camera, it would be much appreciated.

On the bright side, while I despise having to work harder to get some better results, I think they are certainly capable with this camera. And most of all, having better manual focus is a godsend. I think you have that capability on the point and shoots, but it's not nearly as easy and accessible. What is not good is tht while the screen is good, it's often difficult to tell just how sharp you really are focused into the subject as the screen resolution is just OK (although that preserves batter life.) What I did not like was that it was very difficult to get everyone in focus naturally and sometimes only the people in the foreground were in focus with the background being fuzzier, almost like what people prefer for landscape photography. I expect I'll be gett much better at handing moving forward. But no matter what, I'm way more excited about using this camera in conjunction with the more versatile glass. The size factor was critically important as it's really about as large as you can go before it is really not comfortable for it to be a true jacket pocket companion for any occasion. With the pancake lense especially, this is roadworthy. All good, no regrets, just need to keep learning about my tools. Thanks again to everybody for your input.