M50- why would movies have such better saturation/color than stills?

[bigbrother]

This is odd. I’ve noticed this a few times now. When I shoot movies with my M50, the image quality seems noticeably better, specifically in saturation and overall color fidelity. The stills look washed out by comparison. All the same scene, of course (style is portraiture, outdoor and sunny in this last case). Important points:

- I can’t share the shots unfortunately from this last shoot due to contract, but...
- Movie mode is manual, still is Av.
- ISO, shutter speed, and aperture are identical (100, 1/640, 2.2).
- I’ve never changed any of the image optimization, filters, AWB, anything.
- HOWEVER, in writing this and checking all the settings for any discrepancies, I noticed one difference- the Auto Lighting Optimizer is standard in Av, off in Movie manual (and in still manual, for what it’s worth). I wonder if that’s it (?) It’s late and I can’t shoot right now but maybe you can clue me in.

Thanks so much for your help and I apologize that I can’t provide the content. I hope this description is adequate.

[rs-eos]

When you compare the movies to the stills, are you using the back of your camera?  Or on a computer after import?

For your still images, are you capturing in RAW or JPEG?

One possibility is that if your stills are in RAW, they can appear flat depending upon settings and software.  For example, I set my 5D IV to "Faithful" and also set Adobe Lightroom's main profile to Camera Faithful.

[Tronhard]

My understanding was that the M50 was tweaked to be a video-centric camera and thus biased towards that function in its features, such as processor, which was upgraded from the M5.  The M5 was more directed towards stills, with less video featues, a slower processor, but with a control on the top plate for exposure compensation, something that is missing on the M50.   I was hoping that one day they would update the M5 to something like the 90D with IBIS and AEAF, but that seems to be a lost cause.

[Waddizzle]

---

@Tronhard wrote:

My understanding was that the M50 was tweaked to be a video-centric camera and thus biased towards that function in its features, such as processor, which was upgraded from the M5.  The M5 was more directed towards stills, with less video featues, a slower processor, but with a control on the top plate for exposure compensation, something that is missing on the M50.   I was hoping that one day they would update the M5 to something like the 90D with IBIS and AEAF, but that seems to be a lost cause.

---

The M Series may or may not be a lost cause.  The cameras do not seem to be as popular in some places as they are in East Asia.  The M Series are Canon's direct competitor with the Sony A6xxx Series.  You would almost think the M Series are living on borrowed time, but Canon still seems to support it.

Why the RF and EF-M mounts are incompatible is anyone's guess.  It is almost like there were two different design teams at work that never spoke to one another.  

[Tronhard]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@Tronhard wrote:

My understanding was that the M50 was tweaked to be a video-centric camera and thus biased towards that function in its features, such as processor, which was upgraded from the M5.  The M5 was more directed towards stills, with less video featues, a slower processor, but with a control on the top plate for exposure compensation, something that is missing on the M50.   I was hoping that one day they would update the M5 to something like the 90D with IBIS and AEAF, but that seems to be a lost cause.

---

The M Series may or may not be a lost cause.  The cameras do not seem to be as popular in some places as they are in East Asia.  The M Series are Canon's direct competitor with the Sony A6xxx Series.  You would almost think the M Series are living on borrowed time, but Canon still seems to support it.

Why the RF and EF-M mounts are incompatible is anyone's guess.  It is almost like there were two different design teams at work that never spoke to one another.  

---

I think they have firewalled the the EF-M and RF mounts because the two are designed for totally different markets.  There is a massive difference in the price point between and M-body and R-body camera.  Both can access an EF mount lens but neither can be used on an EF lens camera.  Thus, to me, they are heading in two different directions from the EF mount, but each keeps a legacy contact with that huge array of EF lenses.

[bigbrother]

---

@rs-eos wrote:

When you compare the movies to the stills, are you using the back of your camera?  Or on a computer after import?

For your still images, are you capturing in RAW or JPEG?

One possibility is that if your stills are in RAW, they can appear flat depending upon settings and software.  For example, I set my 5D IV to "Faithful" and also set Adobe Lightroom's main profile to Camera Faithful.

---

Always in JPEG (final destination is Instagram, so doesn't have to be top of the top). I'm comparing on the LCD display, but the results tend to be the same on different displays as well.

[rs-eos]

I'm really not sure then.  I'm going to assume that the JPEG images will be in a color space of sRGB and that your captured moves will have a Rec709 LUT applied to them automatically.  Basically, the same color spaces for stills and movies.

Or can the M50 capture stills/video in other color spaces?

If they are in the same color spaces, then it must be some difference in settings. Or, perhaps just the look that the camera produces for stills vs video.