EOS M thread

[Mark Williams]

(duplicate post)

[Mark Williams]

In researching this camera I read that a few people reported bricking their camera when adding ML after the firmware update. Anyone have any experience with this?

[Alex Anderson]

don't know myself. we can't load ML if we have the latest version 2.0.3 firmware on our camera.

alex

[Alex Anderson]

Rob,
I agree. I love this little cam a lot. BUT, I am really hurting without having any way to hear the audio. Not only while it is recording, but even afterwards. I have to always take the memory card out and then transfer files to my PC to watch and listen to my footage. I got a $9 USB 3.0 reader from Amazon and it's works great. I do get very fast transfers of all my M files. I am not sure how to get this issue resolved. Maybe I could get a DC powered HDMI monitor that also has a headphone jack. But that ruins my whole idea of having the smallest, lightest system to shoot some good HD video. More money, more gear to carry around. More hassle unplugging and plugging in the ext monitor. Yuck. Wish I could have purchased a BlackMagic Pocket instead. But the waiting list is for ever withg over 5300 people ahead of me. And that is just the USA east coast list.

I cannot seem to understand the AV out on the M. If I plug the AV cord into the M AV out plug, the M then shuts off the LCD display and all the controls?? I was hoping to hear audio out at least on playback of video clips. And I hear the HDMI out only shows SD video and not HD when recording. I sure hope that ML gets this running stable on our latest version firmware and gives us some possible solutions to this audio problem.

I bought a new small lav mic that works good. I also got a Y cord that splits audio to left and right going into the M audio. Set the M to manual audio and adjust the levels. I can't see any levels while recording. Only while I set them in the Menu. I can record two mics on two tracks with the Y cord which is nice for interviewing two people on two lavs. But now I worry that a lav mic battery can go bad during an important interview and I will never knew about it until I get into post. Damn. I know I can go with a dual system, but that again defeats my mission as building the "smallest, lightest and lowest cost system to shoot good quality HD movies. Please everyone, don't start with I should get this and that for a dual system. Remember my goal. :-) Less is best.

Also, I now really miss the flip out LCD. Hmm, maybe I should have kept the T3i.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Regarding the audio, I recommend setting the M at one tick above minimum and using the preamp to manage levels, assuming the preamp has enough gain with your mic gain/sensitivity * source SPL situation. On juicedLink preamps, you can crank them to eleven without audible distortion, so if your preamp is good, don't be shy!

ML includes visual monitoring. I haven't loaded it on the M, so I don't know it's capabilities. On the 5D2, ML delivered visual and audio monitoring and allowed full control of the gain structure. It allows one to set the digital gain to 0 and muck with the analog gain independently for extremely low noise. (The Canon software sets the analog gain sky high, so turning the gain down manually isn't as quiet as with ML.) That said, I believe that the M uses a different audio chip than the 5D2 and I don't know if it's fully unlocked yet.

Most of our serious work is still on the 5D2, much of it in RAW mode now. I mainly got the M for traveling light and more for photos than for video, so I don't have any plans to try ML on it at this time. (I like ML for video but dislike using it for photos.) That said, I'm curious to read about others' ML experiences on the M.

Regarding photos, the 5D2 is definitely cleaner than the M and has much less chroma noise when pixel peeping. For web photos, however, the M is more than clean enough. And to have a 35mm equivalent with f/2 speed everywhere I go is seriously cool.

[Alex Anderson]

i really like the kit lens 22 f/2 so far. I know about ML and I have used it before on the T3i. I have no problems with using the audio levels in Manual and the Auto is not too bad for that matter. But I normally use Manual mode and I even have to set the levels lower for an SM-58 direct into the camera. The lav I have is a little hotter, so I have to turn the level down even more a few tick marks. Here is a situation where I could use separate levels for audio inside the camera as opposed to how now only one level control sets both channels. And. this is all without any external pre amps which suits my less is best scenario with this camera. I am guessing they fixed up some issues with audio on this camera. I have an excellent sound system at home and I never hear any hissing or distortion just using the M internal audio.

No one on the M that has the newer version firmware can even load ML at this time. And I heard we cannot go backwards in firmware. If anyone out there has an M and the old firmware, we'd love to hear how it's going with ML if you are trying it out. No one has reported any disasters from it on the ML forum.

Alex

[Rob Katz]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Regarding the audio, I recommend setting the M at one tick above minimum and using the preamp to manage levels, assuming the preamp has enough gain with your mic gain/sensitivity * source SPL situation. On juicedLink preamps, you can crank them to eleven without audible distortion, so if your preamp is good, don't be shy!

ML includes visual monitoring. I haven't loaded it on the M, so I don't know it's capabilities. On the 5D2, ML delivered visual and audio monitoring and allowed full control of the gain structure. It allows one to set the digital gain to 0 and muck with the analog gain independently for extremely low noise. (The Canon software sets the analog gain sky high, so turning the gain down manually isn't as quiet as with ML.) That said, I believe that the M uses a different audio chip than the 5D2 and I don't know if it's fully unlocked yet.

Most of our serious work is still on the 5D2, much of it in RAW mode now. I mainly got the M for traveling light and more for photos than for video, so I don't have any plans to try ML on it at this time. (I like ML for video but dislike using it for photos.) That said, I'm curious to read about others' ML experiences on the M.

Regarding photos, the 5D2 is definitely cleaner than the M and has much less chroma noise when pixel peeping. For web photos, however, the M is more than clean enough. And to have a 35mm equivalent with f/2 speed everywhere I go is seriously cool.

jon-

tomorrow eos-m movie mode test will be with the 22mm and the mix-pre.

i will use the mix-pre at proper level and the eos-m one tick above minimum. the pre-amps on the mix-pre are thought to be excellent so we shall see.

i also have this cheapo 3.5mm lav that does a decent job. i used it on a short interview with the younger daughter and she sounded good going directly into the eos-m. the only problem was i thought the level was a tab low even though according to the eos-m audio meters, i should have been dead on.

i did like the look of the footage.

i shot the two daughter interviews in portrait picture style
sharpness 0
contrast -3
saturation -2
color tone 0

okay, every new system is a learning process.

so live and learn.

ymmv.

be well.

rob
smalltalk productions
nyc

[Chad Whelan]

I have just decided to purchase this camera and am looking forward to incorporating into my wedding work as a fun tool. I can see it on a gorilla pod getting me some interesting angles and otherwise unachievable shots because of the size. I have not seen too much mention of image stabilization with the 22mm lens or any other lens with IS via the adapter. Any comments on that? I could also see how this would make a great steady cam camera/lens combo for certain shots as well.

[Jason Garrett]

The 22mm doesn't have image stabilization – I can tell you that much. I've seen talk on forums about auto-focus with other lenses, but no mentions of issues with image stabilization functions being impacted.

[Al Bergstein]

Yes, there are certainly audio limitations to this camera, and Canon seems to put in features that don't cannabalize their camcorder division. It's a shame that so many big corporations do this kind of horse trading on features. They ought to let stuff rise and fall on it's own merit. But not even the new 70D for almost $2k has the mic out jack on it. So the new M won't likely either. Can you say HDMI monitor?

Originally Posted by Rob Katz

i worked this afternoon on using the eos-m in movie mode.

the end result is decent.

Al says: Yes, I would agree, decent and more work than it should be.
i am disappointed in the audio controls.

the pre-amp and mic combo is typical consumer camcorder. nothing special on either count.

Al says: yes, but for the form factor, they get you started.

i ran a at875r short shotgun mic, mounted atop of the camera into a mix-pre and then sent the mic signal thru the mix-pre and into the eos-m's 3.5mm side port.

in the menu i had gone to the movie tool folder and switched the audio from automatic to manual.

i set levels on the mix-pre and attempted to calibrate the input record level on the eos-m. my mix-pre level even at it's lowest was going in mid-to high on the eos-m. i had to turn the eos-m record level to 1/4 as to not have the level peak into the red.

Al says: I look at that as a positive thing.


"...and the audio levels from the mix-pre were spot on." Al says: As they should be. That's what the mixpre-d is for. Making up for the lack of good pre and sound level controls in DSLRs.

i brought the sd card into my imac. the files are easy to ingest .mov/h264 files. the movies can be perfect b-roll for other canon dslr footage or even web distributed media.

i just wish the darn audio was managed better.

Al says: Yep, for the price it's a decent tool, but not a main one. Good enough for getting by, and especially if you are on a tripod, but not the replacement for a 5DMkiii for example. There are reasons you pay that price! (G).

I look at it as a great little B cam and travel camera, with the ability to stick a mic on it, while on the road, and hopefully get a good looking picture and sound. But I would never rely on it for the primary money making camera. I rely on dual cards slots so if a card fails I still have the job, real professional sound monitoring etc. But there are plenty of times this would do the job. It's very close to being just right. Next level up from this is likely a Panny Lumix or lower end Canon DSLR.

[Jason Garrett]

I'm curious what you guys think regarding how the EOS M with Magic Lantern running on it would compare to the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera? Obviously it doesn't have all the inputs/outputs of the Blackmagic, but in terms of image quality of the 'RAW' of the M vs. the Blackmagic 'RAW.'

It lent an extra appeal to the potential option of it for me considering it even if I never try to run it if they get a version that will install over the new firmware on the M. Less than third of the price of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera – with a lens included!

I'm only guessing that the 16mm sized sensor would have a tough time competing with the APS-C sized sensor if they're both capturing RAW video, but I'm not thoroughly familiar with exactly what they both capture in 'RAW.'

[Alex Anderson]

I wanted the MBPCC, I still do, but you have to wait months now to get one. They still have not supplied the first orders and there are over 5300 people on the list just on the USA east coast. On the M, I wanted the headphone jack, flip out OLED and Raw recording amongst other things on that cam. I really miss the flip out LCD and no audio monitoring at all on the M. You have to pull the card to transfer files to see what you got or use an HDMI and ext monitor or the AV port for SD quality only. What a hassle. But, it was only $300. it has a large sensor and the ability to mount good glass.

Alex

[Mark Rosenzweig]

"You have to pull the card to transfer files to see what you got or use an HDMI and ext monitor or the AV port for SD quality only. What a hassle. But, it was only $300. it has a large sensor and the ability to mount good glass."

I don't understand what you are saying: First, you can also attach the camera by usb cable to a computer to "see"/play/hear the files. Second, aside from wifi, what is different about the EOS-M for seeing/playing the files via HDMI, via cable, via usb, or pulling the card compared to other cameras?. What hassle am I getting that I don't get on other cameras? Or, are you just elaborately talking about inability to monitor the audio (other than the meters) in real time?

[Alex Anderson]

mostly the inability to monitor the auido before or after without having to buy more equipment to lug around or be near a computer or TV. I bought the camera for it's large sensor, able to attach good glass like a 50mm f.12 and its very small size that makes me look like justt another tourist anywhere in the world. I do not want to draw attention to me when I shoot somewhere. I need to get interviews quickly and get out sometimes. I mostly work on my doc projects lately. I do not usually have time for any elaborate setups. Usually a one man band. I need fast lenses to shoot in very low light. I know I need a 5DM3, but can't afford it now. So I chose to get this camera and buy good glass when I can afford it.

But the audio. Very risky to find out in post the battery in lav died and I never knew it and I cannot go back to get that interview or b roll again. I do not want to carry around a second sound system, more batteries and more chargers, etc. Less is best. Just wish I could monitor the audio before, during and right after just like I do withe the video clips. One stinking little 3.5 mm jack with three wires or direct on the PCB. Come on Canon. Geez

I am not alone. Many people hate that we don't have a headphone jack. Please tell me how the usb out to a computer works. Is there some special app needed? I plugged the usb cable that came with the M into my home computer that is Windows 7 and I cannot get it to do anything. How do you do it?

Alex

[Jon Fairhurst]

The M video quality won't compete with RAW. We've been shooting RAW with the 5D2 and ML, and the quality is truly amazing.

That said, RAW is not the right solution in all cases. We've spent a lot of time getting the workflow figured out. Basically, we will offload a card and pre-process/backup the video using custom scripts. When that is done, we will manually load some files into a program, set the temporary "look", and render proxies overnight. The next day we will edit with proxies and do the effects work on compressed DNGs.

This would be much faster (like faster than real-time) using Cineform RAW, but the quality isn't as high as with our approach. In our tests Cineform RAW is a bit noisy. Then again, its encoding speed is excellent.

So, why are we shooting RAW? Because we're shooting against a greenscreen and want excellent edges. We also want to match the colors to various 3rd party scenes. The quality we get from shooting RAW makes a huge difference for our final output. But for typical, fast-turnaround work, we still shoot h.264. It's faster, simpler, and takes less storage. Unless you're doing effects of some really demanding color correction, it's much easier to set the look in the camera, shoot h.264, and do the small amount of coloring needed to match shots.