Canon EOS M50 - an accidental 4K Digital Bolex

[mercer]

Re: this vs. the a6500... well they’re just different cameras. The big elephant is that the a6500 has IBIS and sLog/cine profiles. The latter may be a matter of contention because it is difficult, for some, to get good color out of them, who cares if you have more dynamic range if the color is wonky?

With Andrew’s profile, or one of the dozens of others, you can get plenty of good enough DR with the Canon. In the end it’s about your needs since better is a relative term.

[mercer]

1 minute ago, DaveAltizer said:

1080p is good for sure but it’s not any better than all the other canon dslrs and the 5dmk4 1080p and super35 1080p on 1DC are in a different class than that really. 

4k is where it’s at. Perfect happy medium. It’s not mind blowingly sharp like GH5 but it’s really usable and runs so smooth on my base model MBP. It’s a shame the rolling shutter is so so bad. I’m putting the camera in a cage to add some weight and make me use it more like a real camera. I think once you add the weight and stuff it’s usable. 

I want to try the c-mount veydras on it. I feel like those would be amazing on the m50 crop. 

Also, what wide lenses actually work on it? @mercer can you give me a list of those 1” c-mounts you keep talking about?

Good to know, thanks. I’ve been craving using an old fashioned Canon camera and DPAF... really just DPAF. I’ve seen so many videos with it that I think it would be a great tool for my style of shooting. Obviously it won’t take the number 1 slot in my bag over the 5D3, but for certain things...

 I still love that old school, soft Canon 1080p like Kendy Ty videos offered. I was contemplating getting an 80D to mess around with but unlike other Canon cameras, the price on the 80D hasn’t really dropped as much as I’d like to pay. With the c-mount 4K of the M50, it seems like a great option since I already own a bunch of c-mount lenses. I actually have a 26mm 1.9 Kern-Paillard up for sale on eBay that I may end up keeping.

Okay 1” c-mounts that SHOULD work would be the Fujinon 12.5mm f/1.3, Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.4 (silver with scalloped focus ring) Canon 12.5mm (I think it will have VF in it’s naming scheme somewhere. Those are the 3 I’ve used with the G7 and GX85 with full coverage. Those cameras have a 2.2x crop so I would think they should work with the M50.

Otherwise, you can also look into any 1” machine vision or TV lens... Kowa probably makes one or two. SLR Magic made an 11mm “Toy Lens” that some people used with the BMPCC but I believe was originally made for M4/3, so I assume that should work too... but they’re near impossible to find.

And finally, one of the coolest c-mounts I own I paid $4 for... it’s the  Meopta Openar 20mm and it covered the GX85 with IBIS on. Now I don’t remember if there was an additional crop with IBIS on the GX85, so take that with a grain of salt... but if that lens works on the M50, I’ll be completely stoked as that lens just has some amazing mojo to it. This was shot with it using the Micro... and then there’s a picture of the lens. 

[Dave Maze]

I guess that Rokinon 12mm f2 and the upcoming Laowa 9mm f2.8 EF-M would be a better option. Both will work at APSC and 4K. 

[mercer]

Also remember if you like Rokinon lenses, the 12mm f/2.2 cine lens comes in the EF-M mount.

They have a few of those smaller aps-c lenses. I’ve used the 12 and the 21mm, which I liked for their size and smooth operation. They also have a fast 35mm. So on the M50 with 4K crop, the 3 lenses would give about a 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm FOV respectively... hell, it almost sounds like they were made for the 4K crop of the M50.

4 minutes ago, DaveAltizer said:

I guess that Rokinon 12mm f2 and the upcoming Laowa 9mm f2.8 EF-M would be a better option. Both will work at APSC and 4K. 

Haha, just posted something similar. 

But the good thing about the 1” lenses is that you can get almost new copies for less than 50 each... so depending how serious you want to be with the M50, would determine how much you want to drop on lenses for it.

[Trek of Joy]

Nice video Andrew, some of those lenses have a lot of character. Corner pixel peepers bash field curvature, but it can be used to your advantage as long as you know where to place the subject. The Nikon 58/1.4g comes to mind, can look awful if you don't know where its strengths lie, but when you nail it, its magic.

Chris

[tyger11]

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

But price difference?!

And colour.

And C-mount glass.

And ergonomics & menus.

All true, but with the Sony, you get IBIS, 6K to 4K downsampling, 30p, no crop in 4K, much better bitrate, and a much better native lens selection (and a much better selection of lenses if you're willing to use and adapter). Things could get more interesting on that front if MetaBones comes out with an EF to EF-M SpeedBooster. Supposedly they had one ready back in the day, but never bothered to bring it to market when the M tanked.

If you're willing to shoot in Slog and grade your footage, the Canon color advantage goes away.

Price and ergonomics are the only advantages. In its price class, though, yeah, the M50 is a quite good 1080 camera. I;'m hoping the Magic Lantern folks can turn it into a beast.

[mercer]

Actually I think the bitrate is higher on the M50 than the a6500. And I’m unsure if grading sLog2 takes away Canon’s color advantage... More DR yes, color advantage... shrug. Anyway, they’re such different cameras, I wouldn’t even compare them. 

[Andrew Reid]

17 hours ago, tyger11 said:

All true, but with the Sony, you get IBIS, 6K to 4K downsampling, 30p, no crop in 4K, much better bitrate, and a much better native lens selection (and a much better selection of lenses if you're willing to use and adapter). Things could get more interesting on that front if MetaBones comes out with an EF to EF-M SpeedBooster. Supposedly they had one ready back in the day, but never bothered to bring it to market when the M tanked.

If you're willing to shoot in Slog and grade your footage, the Canon color advantage goes away.

Price and ergonomics are the only advantages. In its price class, though, yeah, the M50 is a quite good 1080 camera. I;'m hoping the Magic Lantern folks can turn it into a beast.

All true

It's not all about specs though.

[Dustin]

I feel like for me this is a perfect camera for casual shooting/occasional project like I do. However, the lack of IBIS is keeping me from really thinking about it.

Just got back from a trip from Washington DC using my usual: the casual shooting Nikon d5300 with an all purpose tamron17-50 f2.8. At times the footage looks as good as anything 1080p. However, my hand is ever shaky even with a neck strap and it’s not always convenient to throw it on a mini tripod. I just don’t do great handheld.

I also don’t shoot video enough to warrant purchasing a $1k camera but even with warp stabilizer I want my next camera to have IBIS to at least help out my shakiness. This camera does have everything else I’d need. Maybe I just need to save up

[kye]

2 hours ago, Dustin said:

I feel like for me this is a perfect camera for casual shooting/occasional project like I do. However, the lack of IBIS is keeping me from really thinking about it.

Just got back from a trip from Washington DC using my usual: the casual shooting Nikon d5300 with an all purpose tamron17-50 f2.8. At times the footage looks as good as anything 1080p. However, my hand is ever shaky even with a neck strap and it’s not always convenient to throw it on a mini tripod. I just don’t do great handheld.

I also don’t shoot video enough to warrant purchasing a $1k camera but even with warp stabilizer I want my next camera to have IBIS to at least help out my shakiness. This camera does have everything else I’d need. Maybe I just need to save up

Trying to get nice 1080 while casual handheld shooting with an ILC is a mine-field I've been trying to cross for some time.

To grossly over-simplify:

• All cinema cameras are out because they're either too heavy or too attention grabbing
• Canon non-cinema cameras are deliberately crippled to protect their cinema line
• Canon with ML is unreliable and has a steep learning curve
• The GH5 either can't focus reliably or people can't work out how to do it
• The Sonys all seem to overheat (although depending on what you shoot this might not be an issue) and the smaller/cheaper ones have bad RS
• The Fuji XH-1 chews batteries and the extra grip costs extra and makes it pretty heavy
• Things like the original BMPCC need a rig and becomes cumbersome (BMPCC needs external power)
• Going modular with things like the BMMCC requires a rig and BMMCC has almost no controls and so you can't use it to adapt to changing situations

Mostly the way I see people getting around this combination is to either choose Canons soft 1080, sacrifice reliability and use Canon ML RAW, get a fast fixed-lens camera like RX100 or RX10, accept RS and overheating with a6300/6500, or accept a fixed focal length and give a big middle-finger to the whole industry and use their phone (where with up to 4k60 and 1080p240 it beats everything up to 10x or 20x the price).   Or just put it on a tripod, and accept that you'll get hassled or barred from most places you go.

The basic issue is that industry assumes that consumers who want convenience don't want image quality (compact point-and-shoots), consumers who want image quality only take photos (Canon DSLRs take lovely photos), or that if you want image quality then you're a pro and you can use a tripod and don't mind a huge camera.  We're caught between the other users basically.

[tweak]

Personally I wouldn't choose this camera over a6500 (having shot both) and I'm pretty much a Canon fanboy and own and shoot with 5Dmkiii and several EOSM1s all with ML. It's depressing, because Canon are so close to something super nice here, but all those little things (crop, RS, bitrate etc.) are taking too much away from it. Don't get me wrong I love shooting C-mount lenses, but there's only so far that look can go and if I'm going to do that I will just shoot my GH5 or Raw on the EOSm for a truly 16mm look.

Just my thoughts for anyone weighing up this camera.

[webrunner5]

9 hours ago, kye said:

Trying to get nice 1080 while casual handheld shooting with an ILC is a mine-field I've been trying to cross for some time.

To grossly over-simplify:

• All cinema cameras are out because they're either too heavy or too attention grabbing
• Canon non-cinema cameras are deliberately crippled to protect their cinema line
• Canon with ML is unreliable and has a steep learning curve
• The GH5 either can't focus reliably or people can't work out how to do it
• The Sonys all seem to overheat (although depending on what you shoot this might not be an issue) and the smaller/cheaper ones have bad RS
• The Fuji XH-1 chews batteries and the extra grip costs extra and makes it pretty heavy
• Things like the original BMPCC need a rig and becomes cumbersome (BMPCC needs external power)
• Going modular with things like the BMMCC requires a rig and BMMCC has almost no controls and so you can't use it to adapt to changing situations

Mostly the way I see people getting around this combination is to either choose Canons soft 1080, sacrifice reliability and use Canon ML RAW, get a fast fixed-lens camera like RX100 or RX10, accept RS and overheating with a6300/6500, or accept a fixed focal length and give a big middle-finger to the whole industry and use their phone (where with up to 4k60 and 1080p240 it beats everything up to 10x or 20x the price).   Or just put it on a tripod, and accept that you'll get hassled or barred from most places you go.

The basic issue is that industry assumes that consumers who want convenience don't want image quality (compact point-and-shoots), consumers who want image quality only take photos (Canon DSLRs take lovely photos), or that if you want image quality then you're a pro and you can use a tripod and don't mind a huge camera.  We're caught between the other users basically.

Now none of the A7 series cameras over heat anymore. You can buy a original A7 or a A7s for less than 1000 bucks all day. Cheaper than a A6500, even a A6300 at times. And the 1080p is killer in the A7s. And it sucks in the A6300, A6500. But 4k is Killer in the A6500. Plus you are talking FF here also, with the ability to use the crop thingy.

[mercer]

5 hours ago, tweak said:

Personally I wouldn't choose this camera over a6500 (having shot both) and I'm pretty much a Canon fanboy and own and shoot with 5Dmkiii and several EOSM1s all with ML. It's depressing, because Canon are so close to something super nice here, but all those little things (crop, RS, bitrate etc.) are taking too much away from it. Don't get me wrong I love shooting C-mount lenses, but there's only so far that look can go and if I'm going to do that I will just shoot my GH5 or Raw on the EOSm for a truly 16mm look.

Just my thoughts for anyone weighing up this camera.

You retired your 7D and picked up a 5D Mark III? How do you like it?

[kye]

10 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Now none of the A7 series cameras over heat anymore. You can buy a original A7 or a A7s for less than 1000 bucks all day. Cheaper than a A6500, even a A6300 at times. And the 1080p is killer in the A7s. And it sucks in the A6300, A6500. But 4k is Killer in the A6500. Plus you are talking FF here also, with the ability to use the crop thingy.

It would be great, because the A7III looks like it might be the perfect camera for me (that eye-detect AF!) but this thread talks about overheating.

https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/27258-a7iii-overheating-and-oem-vs-aftermarket-sony-np-fz100/

The overheating doesn't look like it's a major major hassle, but going from XC10 which has fans to something that doesn't makes me a little nervous..

[webrunner5]

11 minutes ago, kye said:

It would be great, because the A7III looks like it might be the perfect camera for me (that eye-detect AF!) but this thread talks about overheating.

https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/27258-a7iii-overheating-and-oem-vs-aftermarket-sony-np-fz100/

The overheating doesn't look like it's a major major hassle, but going from XC10 which has fans to something that doesn't makes me a little nervous..

Well the A7 mk III hasn't been out long enough to look at all the bugs it might have. So it Might really overheat, I don't know. What they did on the A7r mk II was just raise the level when the warning showed up. Seemed to work LoL. So it might be a real problem or they set the limit too low on the A7 mk III. I guess we will find out. Would be a shame if true, I find that body nearly impossible to pass up for the money they want for it.

Now on the A6300, A6500 I think it is because the bodies are crazy small. I just don't see how they can ever overcome that.

[kye]

Just now, webrunner5 said:

Well the A7 mk III hasn't been out long enough to look at all the bugs it might have. So it Might really overheat, I don't know. What they did on the A7r mk II was just raise the level when the warning showed up. Seemed to work LoL. So it might be a real problem or they set the limit too low on the A7 mk III. I guess we will find out.

Now on the A6300, A6500 I think it is because the bodies are crazy small. I just don't see how they can ever overcome that.

Yes, time will tell.  and I agree with you about the body size of the A6X00 cameras, they're crazy small.

I guess my beef with Canon is not that they're protecting their more expensive cameras, it's that more expensive also means much larger.  I'm literally in a position where I can't buy the camera I want for any price.

I mean, look at the XC10 (which is on the large side for blending in with the amateurs) next to the smallest Canon cinema camera...

I'd love to be in the position of at least having a perfect option, but alas...

If they took the XC10 and added ILC mount and DPAF it would be great - they could even make it a bit bigger, but just not three times the size like the C100.

[webrunner5]

42 minutes ago, kye said:

Yes, time will tell.  and I agree with you about the body size of the A6X00 cameras, they're crazy small.

I guess my beef with Canon is not that they're protecting their more expensive cameras, it's that more expensive also means much larger.  I'm literally in a position where I can't buy the camera I want for any price.

I mean, look at the XC10 (which is on the large side for blending in with the amateurs) next to the smallest Canon cinema camera...

I'd love to be in the position of at least having a perfect option, but alas...

If they took the XC10 and added ILC mount and DPAF it would be great - they could even make it a bit bigger, but just not three times the size like the C100.

Well I am a tripod guy more than not, and a old ex ENG guy to boot as you know. So size is not really a concern to me. But Run n Gun seems to be the thing now so I can see the need for IBIS and small size. But I think that gets old quick just like to me a lot of these Drone videos. They are interesting, but disorientating in a sense. I just don't think our brains work well to see our bodies in motion a lot of the time. That is why someone invented a chair to sit in LoL.

If Canon made a XC20 with what you ask for it would cost 4000 bucks or more.  The C100 mkII is smaller as is the C200 body wise than that original C100 mk I shown. They really are not that big stripped down. Now a C700, that thing is a Honker! Stick a Cine PL lens on it, Christ! But a Arri Alexa is  nearly as big, not as long in reality also.

A friend of mine had one of these Mitchell 35mm film cameras and it was scary big. So it can always be worse. The tripod and head must have weighed over 40 pounds alone. I was at a Cincinnati Reds Baseball game a few weeks ago. Those network stationary TV cameras are a honker also. The one I was near has a 75X Fujinon lens on it.

[Trek of Joy]

2 hours ago, kye said:

If they took the XC10 and added ILC mount and DPAF it would be great - they could even make it a bit bigger, but just not three times the size like the C100.

The XC10/15 and EOS-M need to have a love child - the EOS-MXC using the C200's sensor and the EOS-M lenses. I dig the XC15, but the fixed lens is a deal breaker for me. So is the m50's rolling shutter. 

Chris

[kye]

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I just don't think our brains work well to see our bodies in motion a lot of the time.

For me it's a case of starting with what is best for the subject matter of the material, and what the film conventions are, and then working back from there with the minimum equipment.  I agree with you completely - just because IS means you can get gimbal-like smoothness doesn't mean every shot should be a gimbal shot.

I think I use the IS to be able to get the same kind of shots that those with tripods typically tend to do, but just not needing the setup time and hassle.  Ie, static shots, pans (if there's a landscape or something larger than fits in the frame), or to follow an object (a person or animal).

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

If Canon made a XC20 with what you ask for it would cost 4000 bucks or more.  The C100 mkII is smaller as is the C200 body wise than that original C100 mk I shown. They really are not that big stripped down. Now a C700, that thing is a Honker! Stick a Cine PL lens on it, Christ! But a Arri Alexa is  nearly as big, not as long in reality also.

It's interesting that the C100mkII is smaller, it doesn't look that much smaller unfortunately  although it's hard to find a good picture.

I guess that what I'm asking for is somewhere between the XC10 and the C100.   In terms of adding features, it's more likely to be a reduction from the C100 - a C50 perhaps? - although I'm not convinced that the increased size of the C100 sensor must mean that the camera has to be as large as the C100.

The argument that a C100 isn't too large because larger cameras exist is just silly.  It's like saying that the truck that is too large to fit in your garage does fit because road trains exist.

1 hour ago, Trek of Joy said:

The XC10/15 and EOS-M need to have a love child - the EOS-MXC using the C200's sensor and the EOS-M lenses. I dig the XC15, but the fixed lens is a deal breaker for me. So is the m50's rolling shutter. 

I'm right there with you!

[tweak]

21 hours ago, mercer said:

You retired your 7D and picked up a 5D Mark III? How do you like it?

You have a good memory haha.
Yeah I sold the 7D last year for basically same as I bought it for. Got a 5Diii for a pretty good price afterwards. Main reason I got the 5Diii was actually for photos and the fact it would fit in my 7D Aquatech waterhousing. Since I already have GH5 (which I can also fit in the housing) I'm not using 5Diii as much for video as when I used the 7D (when I also had GH4 previous). That said 5Diii colour and image is the best of almost any camera I've used and can afford, the thing is most people I shoot with want a higher resolution look to their video and also want some slo-mo (60p). If it were up to me I'd probably use 5D more for video than I do. One thing I've kind of noticed between 7D to 5D Raw is that 5D appears to have more FPN, I swear I didn't notice that at all on the 7D.
I think that the GH5 HLG 6K anamorphic footage (or 4K 10bit HLG) is really nice, unfortunately I notice quite a difference between that and the 60p cine-d 8-bit mode which I use most as people want slo-mo. The colours are so much nicer to work with in 10-bit and HLG, I find it super hard in comparision to balance out the colours in 8-bit Cine-D sometimes, but maybe that's also down to skill...
I'm still looking for a Raw capable camera that can do a bit more, eventually I'd love something like a Terra 4K (or maybe even this Zcam E2 if they can do good things). I'd also love to see what Canon can do with a mirrorless full-frame camera, it would be nice if that was good.