# Returning M today...



## play (Aug 2, 2013)

Had at least 4 bad pixels and even after trying manual sensor clean multiple times, the problem was still there. So I decided to return for exchange but Amazon tells me, they can't replace it since they don't have it anymore.

Does anyone know a source for body or full kit with 22mm lens in USA with USA warranty with the $300 range? I tried B & H, but it's now $399.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 2, 2013)

B&H has the EOS-M with 18-55mm lens for $349 now, that deal is a similar value to the $299 for M+22/2 lens.


----------



## scrup (Aug 3, 2013)

4 bad pixels out of how many! Do you buy cameras to take test shots or make pictures.


----------



## bycostello (Aug 3, 2013)

scrup said:


> 4 bad pixels out of how many! Do you buy cameras to take test shots or make pictures.



+1


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 3, 2013)

scrup said:


> 4 bad pixels out of how many! Do you buy cameras to take test shots or make pictures.



This depends on how 'bad' the pixel is, especially at lower iso's. If in-camera software can't map it out then there's a good reason to return the camera! I've had hot pixels on a 40D and my current 7D but in-camera re-maps have worked for me without the need to exchange the hardware.

FWIW my Canon Powershot S90 had a bad (red-hot) pixel. I sent it to a canon repair center and received it back with the problem fixed. I think they simply remapped the imaging sensor (something you cannot do yourself with a compact camera because there is no 'cleaning mode').


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 3, 2013)

Bought EOS M @ $299 through BH. I just sold it on CL for $365. Will replace with Sony RX100 II 

Why RX100 II: I did have a chance playing with RX100 II last trip to HongKong, IQ is amazing. No doubt the RX100 II is out perform EOS M from AF speed, IQ, even in low light. Not to mention the body size - much smaller and it's pocketable.

I'm not sure how Sony does it...but lately, Sony introduces great compact cameras to market lately.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 3, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm not sure how Sony does it...but lately, Sony introduces great compact cameras to market lately.



Well, they got a head-start; Canon is playing catch-up. FWIW that's why I got the NEX-6.


----------



## play (Aug 3, 2013)

RX 100 and RX 100 MkII are blessed with superior glass, so no wonder the IQ is excellent. When I used my EOS M with some of the highly regarded legacy lenses in my collection, the IQ was improved over the stock 22mm EF-M lens. I'd still get an EOS M body with a used adapted(MF) Zeiss Biogon T*, and then there can be fair comparison between RX 100 II and the EOS M. I still think both RX cameras are overpriced for the sensor size and IQ you get. I suppose the tiny size of the Sony can be an attractive trade off for many.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 4, 2013)

Canon will map out the bad pixels, assuming you are seeing them on the sensor.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 4, 2013)

Whilst it is not the same thing I found the bottled lens correction profile in Lightroom to be staggeringly good for the 22mm STM.


----------



## play (Aug 4, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Whilst it is not the same thing I found the bottled lens correction profile in Lightroom to be staggeringly good for the 22mm STM.



Even the 18-55mm kit lens is almost as sharp as the pancake, at all FOV, just some distortion at 18, 35 and 55mm(as with any zoom lens). I read it on pcmag. It's sharper and better performing than the comparable EF lens for T3i. However, from what I see from sample images, Zeiss T* glass is sharper(it better be for the extra $$$ it costs). For the money, Canon EF M lenses are bargain.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 5, 2013)

play said:


> RX 100 and RX 100 MkII are blessed with superior glass, so no wonder the IQ is excellent. When I used my EOS M with some of the highly regarded legacy lenses in my collection, the IQ was improved over the stock 22mm EF-M lens. I'd still get an EOS M body with a used adapted(MF) Zeiss Biogon T*, and then there can be fair comparison between RX 100 II and the EOS M. I still think both RX cameras are overpriced for the sensor size and IQ you get. I suppose the tiny size of the Sony can be an attractive trade off for many.



agree...otherwise, I wouldn't spend $2800 for RX1 - not only smaller in term of FF, but IQ is better than any Canon DSLR.


----------



## play (Aug 5, 2013)

RX100/mkII undoubtedly has better IQ than the M, but there are many people complaining about dust accumulating on sensor, even after few weeks of light use. Some claim they used proper casing to protect/carry around the camera. And the only way to clean sensor is to send it back to Sony or other repair shop. Sucks that in order to make the camera more portable, Sony resorted to P&S style lens instead of having a detachable lens like Nikon 1 system. Another con, to me is durability concerns. Everything about the lens is controlled electronically, from the lens cap blade to circling electronic dial around lens to control everything. it's just one of those additional things that can go wrong. In short, if Sony offered this camera with detachable lens and in camera lens cleaning mechanism, then I think the RX100 would have been even better. I guess Sony didn't want it to compete against NEX-5/6.

Fuji X100 and X M1 are great cameras with just as amazing IQ as the RX100. However their quality control is problematic. Even worse is their warranty repair/support here in USA. Based on what I read, it is horrific, in the true sense of the word.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 6, 2013)

play said:


> RX100/mkII undoubtedly has better IQ than the M, but there are many people complaining about dust accumulating on sensor, even after few weeks of light use. Some claim they used proper casing to protect/carry around the camera. And the only way to clean sensor is to send it back to Sony or other repair shop. Sucks that in order to make the camera more portable, Sony resorted to P&S style lens instead of having a detachable lens like Nikon 1 system. Another con, to me is durability concerns. Everything about the lens is controlled electronically, from the lens cap blade to circling electronic dial around lens to control everything. it's just one of those additional things that can go wrong. In short, if Sony offered this camera with detachable lens and in camera lens cleaning mechanism, then I think the RX100 would have been even better. I guess Sony didn't want it to compete against NEX-5/6.
> 
> Fuji X100 and X M1 are great cameras with just as amazing IQ as the RX100. However their quality control is problematic. Even worse is their warranty repair/support here in USA. Based on what I read, it is horrific, in the true sense of the word.



Where do you see those complaints on mrk II? I been shooting with RX1 6-7months now, I haven't see any dust yet.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 6, 2013)

I have looked at and then used a Canon M. It's certainly got a lot going for it, in terms of size and decent price (especially the current M lenses). But for me (and I know a lot of others) - while it's smaller than any DSLR, the EOS M still isn't truly meeting my criteria of 'very portable'.

That's why I bought a Sony RX-100 (for my fiancee), and I'm impressed with the image quality. I tested it when I received it. In some situations Canon APS-C DSLR bodies have an edge in terms of overall image crispness (and definitely depth of field). In other photos, the Sony RX-100 holds it's own. (I can't compare Sony RX-100 to Canon M - as I don't own an M...)

My fiancee's camera doesn't have any dust issues, yet... hoping it stays that way! 

Kudos to Sony - and also other companies, technology improvements are great.

Paul


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 6, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> I have looked at and then used a Canon M. It's certainly got a lot going for it, in terms of size and decent price (especially the current M lenses). But for me (and I know a lot of others) - while it's smaller than any DSLR, the EOS M still isn't truly meeting my criteria of 'very portable'.
> 
> That's why I bought a Sony RX-100 (for my fiancee), and I'm impressed with the image quality. I tested it when I received it. In some situations Canon APS-C DSLR bodies have an edge in terms of overall image crispness (and definitely depth of field). In other photos, the Sony RX-100 holds it's own. (I can't compare Sony RX-100 to Canon M - as I don't own an M...)
> 
> ...



In term of IQ, I can say that Sony is better due to new sensor tech. I can see that through my RX1 compared to my 5D III. That doesn't bother me.

Bothering me most is seeing 1" sensor(pocketable RX100 II) out perform the M with 22x15mm sensor. Not only better in low light(indoor), but everything else - faster AF, solid build etc...


----------



## Dianoda (Aug 6, 2013)

I had a somewhat different experience with the RX100 - the rather poor corners at wide angle eventually got to me, and the low ISO performance of the RX100 Mk 1 is definitely not up to the same standard as the APS-C sensor of the EOS M - the Sony RAWs are noisier at base ISO. The bokeh from the RX100 lens wasn't great either, occasionally hazy is probably a good way to describe it. So for the types of shots I like to take - low ISO/optimal aperture - the EOS M delivers better output when I have the time to set up the shot. I find the 22mm f/2 to be a very decent lens, other than the CA in the corners (super easy to fix in photoshop), and the extreme corners aren't perfect (but they are pretty good and notably better than my RX100).

The RX100 definitely has the edge in size, AF speed - compared to DSLRs, the AF in the EOS M just feels brutal in certain situations, comparatively, the Sony can't track focus very well, but the one shot AF mode is speedier and more consistent compared to the M. It's about even on ergonomics, the EOS M controls feel a bit more initiative to me (probably because I'm already very familiar with Canon DSLR control schemes), but the RX100 is is much easier to operate with one hand (after you've installed a Richard Franiec grip, that is - Richard's grip is fantastic).

I'd be willing to give the RX100 series another go once Sony updates the lens, but probably not before then. I still like the camera, too - it's likely the best pocketable compact on the market and a great option for many (did I mention it does great 1080P60 video?) - just after an extended audition, I discovered that I'd rather have a better lens than what the Sony offers.

As for the M - it does some things well, but it's a few tweaks (needs a better location for AF-on mapping, better grip, and a second control dial would be nice - maybe something like the G12/G15 implementation) and a great AF system away from being a truly great camera. The IQ is great, and although the native EF-M lens selection is limited, the options that we do have are very good. When I'm using the M I can't help but think how much better it could be with what the dual-pixel AF tech promises to deliver - seriously, give me better AF and I'd be willing to pay big money for a body this small.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 6, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > I have looked at and then used a Canon M. It's certainly got a lot going for it, in terms of size and decent price (especially the current M lenses). But for me (and I know a lot of others) - while it's smaller than any DSLR, the EOS M still isn't truly meeting my criteria of 'very portable'.
> ...



Hi, yes thanks Dylan - I agree.

The RX-1 is a FF sensor, and I've seen that sensor (and other sensors of Sony) really pushing the bar - and I trust this will benefit us the consumer at the end of the day. But I'm not a 'just think about DR / ISO / sensor' person. Rather I'm a 'whole package' person - and I hope (and expect) Canon to make improvements in its sensors at all sizes, ie 1) at APS-C - eg EOS M and Crop sensor DSLR and 2) in FF too. (Don't mention APS-H - that's 'dead'!) 

The RX-100 and RX-100 II are both amazing cameras - particularly for being pocketable and having great IQ. However the flexibility of having purpose designed lenses and an optical view finder (OVF) mean I prefer the DSLR as my 'general camera'.

I've taken photos with the RX-100 at my home, and also used my 7D - and found my 7D was somewhat (slightly) superior in crispness, and noise / colour characteristics. It appears the EOS M sensor isn't far off the 7D's sensor - and certainly with the Sony sensor being smaller (1 inch) - that's impressive from Sony.

Maybe (and I'm expecting) the dual pixel LiveView AF technology that has debuted with the 70D will go into the EOS M (next model) - and that will significantly improve the EOS M's AF.

The EOS M didn't impress me regarding build... but then again, there were also aspects of the RX-100 I didn't like (eg the flash, and some of the menu implementation / handling).

I still love a DSLR! But good job with the Song RX cameras....

Paul


----------



## play (Aug 7, 2013)

I was talking about sensor dust on RX100 MK 1 & 2, not RX 1. Just google "RX100 sensor dust" and you will find many posts on boards such as dpreview and others. Some images there too. Also google image search shows some pics that users took to show dust artifacts showing up because of sensor dust in pics they took. I was very tempted to get MK 2 but things like sensor dust annoy me too much than they should. There is no sensor cleaning function in camera so you have to send it to Sony just for sensor cleaning, that is just sad for such an amazing camera. After warranty period is over, it can get very expensive to spend on sensor cleaning. If it had sensor cleaning function, I'd buy RX100 in a heartbeat.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 10, 2013)

play said:


> I was talking about sensor dust on RX100 MK 1 & 2, not RX 1. Just google "RX100 sensor dust" and you will find many posts on boards such as dpreview and others. Some images there too. Also google image search shows some pics that users took to show dust artifacts showing up because of sensor dust in pics they took. I was very tempted to get MK 2 but things like sensor dust annoy me too much than they should. There is no sensor cleaning function in camera so you have to send it to Sony just for sensor cleaning, that is just sad for such an amazing camera. After warranty period is over, it can get very expensive to spend on sensor cleaning. If it had sensor cleaning function, I'd buy RX100 in a heartbeat.



I did. I din't see any reports on mrk II yet. Would you like to share your fact - RX100 II, dust on sensor?


----------



## thelebaron (Aug 10, 2013)

ive never heard of the rx100 dust issue, and after owning one for a period of time it was never an issue.


----------



## play (Aug 17, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I did. I din't see any reports on mrk II* yet*. Would you like to share your fact - RX100 II, dust on sensor?



Not yet. How many people actually bother to test for dust? Not many. And very few actually come to notice dust bunnies in the images they shot casually. To be honest, I'm hoping Sony took care of the dust issue when they designed Mk.2 . I really want it as an upgrade for my S90. I was looking at the Fuji X100S, but it suffers from dust issues like X100. Fingers crossed for RX100 mk.2.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 18, 2013)

play said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I did. I din't see any reports on mrk II* yet*. Would you like to share your fact - RX100 II, dust on sensor?
> ...



At this moment, there is no "dust on sensor" report on RX100 mrk II. Make sure you have solid facts next time before comment.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 26, 2013)

Before the conversation even begins re features and performance differences between the M and RX100, we should bear in mind that the RX100 is either twice the cost or more than the M. The RX100 II is 2.5 times more. Wouldn't have mentioned it, but it is a signficant difference and it doesn't appear that anyone else did in this thread.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 27, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Before the conversation even begins re features and performance differences between the M and RX100, we should bear in mind that the RX100 is either twice the cost or more than the M. The RX100 II is 2.5 times more. Wouldn't have mentioned it, but it is a signficant difference and it doesn't appear that anyone else did in this thread.



What's the point buying a small camera that can't put in jean pocket? Let not hijack another thread. We already have this topic here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16610.0

There is no right or wrong here. You might like pink camera, others like black. So, let move on.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 27, 2013)

Wasn't trying to hijack another thread. Just adding some logic and necessary info to the conversation as it doesn't really make sense to even be comparing the two. Sure, it's great that something that costs more than twice what the other thing costs does some things better. But when else would a comparison with these same factors make sense? 

If you're going to say that one thing is preferable to the other (or just a flat out better option), shouldn't they be closer in cost and class? To me, it's apples and oranges. Feature sets and respective niche have some major differences even putting the major price disparity aside.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Aug 27, 2013)

What is this, a facebook status?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 27, 2013)

Here's my 2 cents - like many M users, I am late to the party and only here by merit of the incredible value offered by the recent sale. That being said, I have found the M to be far more impressive than what I anticipated and it has filled a niche for me despite having two FF bodies and a nice kit of lenses.

What I want to say regarding the (valid) accusation that the current kit of M specific lens is so small is that while I share that sentiment, I am at the same time pleased that every lens developed for the system has been 1) High quality, both in construction and optics and 2) Reasonably priced (not to be underestimated in Canon's universe!. Everything about the system seems nicely constructed, from the very solid feel of the body to the nice build quality on the lenses. I recently got the EF adapter and was impressed at its quality build along with the very clever and quality way the tripod foot was implemented.

So, my point is that while expansion of the system is not at the rate that you or I might like, at least Canon seems to be putting enough effort into what it has brought to market that it is worth buying. And, thanks to the nature of mirrorless, between EF lenses and legacy lenses through adapters, I'm not exactly lacking glass to put in front of the sensor.


----------

