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.
1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION
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 
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.
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.
@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
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!
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.
" 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.
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.
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.
