Eos M images Post yours

I love my RX100, and actually have used the zoom on occasion. I think what trapped me with the EOS M was David's comments regarding the comparison of the RAW files.

This is quite the leap for me as I am not a so-called "Canon guy." In fact, except for an old A35ML I bought by accident on the List a few months back, this is my first ever Canon purchase!

MORE IMAGES to tide me over, please!!!
 
Jeff (burancap),

I'm feeling the pressure ;)

The RX100 is a great camera...a game-changer for small-sensor compacts. The EOS M has, as I said, a dSLR sensor and processor (digic 5). The images don't really compare...the EOS frames are smooth in a big-camera way, whereas the RX100 still falls apart a bit at anything but base ISO. It doesn't look bad printed, but it's there. I saw the same artifacts on older cameras at lower ISOs (Canon G10, ISO 400 starts to get noisy).

As we know, noise isn't everything...but the files coming from the EOS M are really nice. I haven't been able to trick the meter yet, either. That's key.

It's still thicker than the RX100 though. It'll fit into cargo pants, but I think it needs a waist pouch (at minimum) for constant carry. Luckily, a small wrist lanyard makes it easy to just handhold full-time too.
 
9474500748_5dfb0ff8e6_b.jpg


Jupiter 8 (f2 1/3200) with ltm adapter
 
Anyone shoot one of these and a GRD or a Nikon A back to back?

Curious since this seems like a more apt comparison than the RX100.
 
For me the comparison began at the relative compactness and most importantly, the cost. The EOS m + 22mm is around the same cost as a 2nd hand RX100, whereas the GRD and Nikon A are double the price. But I agree, the GRD/Nikon A would be on my potential list if I had the $$$ to spare.
 
I really think the difference in pure IMAGE quality between the EOS M and the Nikon A/Ricoh GR is academic. Same sized sensor, but faster (slightly) AF on the Nikon and Ricoh. In fact, the Nikon A was criticized about it's "slow" AF but that shouldn't limit it's usability (as I'm finding on the EOS M). The big difference you'll see, of course, is this: The EOS M has a beautiful 22mm f2 lens, which is faster and more bokelicious than the other two. We'll ignore the ability to change lenses for the time being.

I was ready to pull the trigger on a GR, but really preferred the 35mm focal length. That's what gives the EOS M the edge for me (and, it's at full resolution...not a cropped 28mm fov).

Also, the Canon has great color from their RAW files. They've got a bit of experience.
 
I love the included lens but the ability to use leica and Nikon lenses and any other lens made with an adapter is really special. I hope Amedeo makes an adapter for this camera so I can use my Kiev mount Jupiter 9 on it
Nik
 
Personally, I probably wouldn't ever use another lens on it besides the 22 but I do like cameras with non-retractable lenses because I feel like retractable lenses are a weakness over time and a good way to introduce dirt onto the sensor. However since the life of digitals isn't very long, probably not an issue.
 
You could probably hypothetically knock the EOS M around a bit more since it's solid and has a solid lens mount. I always thought compact cameras with retractable lenses had a pretty big weak spot.
 
David, maybe a strange, unanswerable question, but how does the EOS-M compare to the X100 (which I recall you also have)?

Just curious because I have an odd group of cameras on my consider list at the moment. I'm thinking of passing on the Coolpix A/GR due to the focal length. So was back to thinking about an X100S. But the EOS-M is much less expensive.
 
David_Manning said:
Color shot of my youngest daughter at the original Dr. Pepper bottling plant in Dublin, Texas...

22mm STM, f2.2

9411251018_7074debf11_b.jpg
Click to expand...

nice pic, it must be nice to have subjects who will hold still for you, no luck with my boys. My 5 year old photo bombs me constantly by moving at the last second ;)


Nik
 
I had both

I had both

Paddy C said:
David, maybe a strange, unanswerable question, but how does the EOS-M compare to the X100 (which I recall you also have)?

Just curious because I have an odd group of cameras on my consider list at the moment. I'm thinking of passing on the Coolpix A/GR due to the focal length. So was back to thinking about an X100S. But the EOS-M is much less expensive.
Click to expand...

Not to jump in on this, but I will :). I had the X100 for a year or so. Just sold it and bought the Canon M. I wanted to love the Fuji x100 however the autofocus system on that camera is very strange even when it confirms focus I would get a lot of blurry shots. Too many. I would have been fine if you can manually focus the x100 but trying to manually focus that camera is what led me to sell it in the first place. I shoot in manual mode all the time and believed it was going to be a poor mans Leica M9 but it is not.

The Canon M on the other hand takes fantastic sharp photos. I received mine from BH photo the day the new firmware was issued online. As I own a Canon 5dmkII and a lot of L glass I thought the M with the EF adapter could be a cool little travel camera when I am out an about everyday. I do not like the fact that it does not have a viewfinder but I knew that going into It. I had a brand new Canon EF 50mm 1.8 sitting in the box ( I got it for free when I bought another camera under a promotion) Its a cheap lens but it is plenty good on the M and I have the 22mm kit lens that came with the camera . A nice little rig I must say. ;)
attachment.php

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0432-Edit.jpg
    IMG_0432-Edit.jpg
    145.3 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_0375-Edit.jpg
    IMG_0375-Edit.jpg
    77.3 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom