# ...with a refurbished M3 dirt-cheap...looking yet again



## josephandrews222 (Jan 1, 2017)

I'm looking at playing around with it (an M3) for real and buying one. Canon's M's do not replace DSLRs but they sure are fun...

I really like my M2 and the M's in our house still work.

Check out the jpegs at these two links. Specifically…over on the right where the circular PS 69 Proportional Scale is found…

1.	http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-eos-m5/FULLRES/EOSM5hSLI03200NR2D.HTM

2.	http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-eos-m3/FULLRES/EOSM3hSLI03200NR2D.HTM


Link 1 points to an image acquired by an M5 while Link 2 is from an M3. I presume the PS 69 is more-or-less white in color, right?

What am I seeing here in the M3's image? I downloaded it and tried to fiddle with white balance and got nowhere... 

Makes me wonder (yet again) about the M3...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 1, 2017)

1. The PS69 looks great to me for both the M3 and the M5, no need for color balance. Is your monitor calibrated?

Trying to white balance a jpeg is not advised, try the raw. Altered jpegs can look bad.


----------



## Fleetie (Jan 1, 2017)

It's certainly true that the PS69 is rendered very different colours in those 2 images.


I have to say that I "believe" the M3 image far more than the M5 image, in this case.
I think the PS69 is that kind of yellowish colour. (Though I've never seen one.) I've seen similar items like slide rules, and they are often the same yellowish colour.


In the M3 image, other, nearby white objects are shown as white.


It makes me worry about why the M5 image is showing the PS69 as white, and so very different from the more believable M3 image.


What post-processing from RAW was carried out on those images? I know they came from that image-comparison website, but I wonder what processing that website does on RAW images before presenting them.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jan 1, 2017)

Fleetie said:


> It's certainly true that the PS69 is rendered very different colours in those 2 images.
> 
> 
> I have to say that I "believe" the M3 image far more than the M5 image, in this case.
> ...



I'm attempting to attach a single jpg that has both PS69 images side-by-side (M5 on the left):


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 1, 2017)

They are not the same scale.

One has a black mark at 6 O'clock, the other doesn't.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jan 1, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> They are not the same scale.
> 
> One has a black mark at 6 O'clock, the other doesn't.



Good find!


----------



## Fleetie (Jan 1, 2017)

Yes, well-noticed!


But that reveals VERY poor practice at that website.


It's supposed to be an image-COMPARISON facility, FFS.


I mean, WHY?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 1, 2017)

Here is a comparison of the color checkers from the 3200iso shots when a custom camera profile has been created for each camera.

I think I might have been hasty saying the site has an issue, it might just be the colour noise in the sample patch that is throwing off the profile creator software.


Anyway, as can be seen by the screenshot. Both cameras have very good colour accuracy at 3200iso, and as with all digital cameras in pretty much the last ten years, color is not an issue and you should never base a purchasing decision on it, it is 100% subjective and adjustable. It can also be adjusted too taste or accuracy fully automatically.


----------



## Fleetie (Jan 1, 2017)

Hmm. The image on the left (M5, apparently, as claimed) looks like it is grainier and fuzzier, to my eyes.


I should add that I am very much in the market for the M5. I have the M3 and I like it. I think the M5 must be a better camera. I am just concerned by what I see in the above comparison. But I have little doubt that the M5 must deliver better IQ than the (already good) M3.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 1, 2017)

Fleetie said:


> Hmm. The image on the left (M5, apparently, as claimed) looks like it is grainier and fuzzier, to my eyes.



It is digital, you can make anything look like anything, don't forget very little of this information is baked in to the RAW file, it is all (in my case) Adobe's algorithms reinterpretation of Canon information. It is just as valid to have a different interpretation, which is why I always make custom camera profiles.

The only way to make valid comparisons for your own use is to take two RAW files and process them to your best liking specific to your intended output. I print a lot so tend to process for print which is more forgiving of noise and over sharpening. Web use doesn't need the enlargement so, for instance, there is little point in people who primarily output to web sizes to compare at 100% view.

With optimal processing for both cameras there is little to choose between them at 3200iso, they are both very good and usable. If you want to find bigger differences you need to go up the iso scale.


----------



## Fleetie (Jan 1, 2017)

I should add that I am very much in the market for the M5. I have the M3 and I like it. I think the M5 must be a better camera. I am just concerned by what I see in the above comparison. But I have little doubt that the M5 must deliver better IQ than the (already good) M3.

The EF-M 18-150mm is almost certain to get bought by me later this month, and the M5 is likely to follow in Feb. And then I think I'll be very happy with that pair as a more travel-friendly alternative to my 5D3 and L-glass.

I really want the M5 to be great, and I do believe it will be, for me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 1, 2017)

Here is another screenshot, this time with all sharpening and NR turned off. 

I would not expect to see much difference between the sensors.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 1, 2017)

@private: thanks for the good data and information!


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jan 1, 2017)

PBD - great catch on the difference in the PS69 scales. I've wondered why the difference in coloration on the scale in the past but didn't see the tell-tail mark to distinguish. I'm guessing the whiter color scale is newer and replaced a heavily faded original. I've noticed other subtle differences in their setup occasionally - e.g. the cover of the crayon box has moved from time to time. While they try to keep things consistent, that too can be a problem. They use the aging Canon 50mm Compact Macro lens which may, or may not, be the best representative for some of the newer high res. bodies. On Olympus they use an old 4/3 macro lens which requires an adapter for current m4/3 cameras - not the latest technology lens and surely not the best representation of current cameras and latest lens design. But it's consistent. For Pentax they use a Sigma lens?

BTW, it appears C-Thru Ruler is now a Wescott company and latest copies of the PS69 are made in China so nothing says a new copy of PS-69 is identical to an old copy.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 1, 2017)

Here are the two files processed 'optimally' for my uses.

I think the M5 is around half a stop better for noise in the shadows, but that is subjective. CA and general distortions are easily removed from both so there really isn't that much between them.

I wouldn't change from an M3 to an M5 for higher IQ, I would change for the different feature set.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 2, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Here are the two files processed 'optimally' for my uses.
> 
> I think the M5 is around half a stop better for noise in the shadows, but that is subjective. CA and general distortions are easily removed from both so there really isn't that much between them.
> 
> I wouldn't change from an M3 to an M5 for higher IQ, I would change for the different feature set.



I agree, change for the dual pixel AF, but 1/2 stop improvement in a sensor is huge, I doubt its that much. Its too bad that Canon still basically uses the P&S firmware rather than DSLR based firmware.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 2, 2017)

I know the original M had DSLR firmware, including the "My Menu" option. The M10, however, does not (see my review thread). 

I have not confirmed whether the M3 or M5 have this feature though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2017)

Act444 said:


> I know the original M had DSLR firmware, including the "My Menu" option. The M10, however, does not (see my review thread).
> 
> I have not confirmed whether the M3 or M5 have this feature though.



You can have up to 5 My Menu screens on the M5.


----------

