At this point for a few months I was happy I’d beat the subject to death, and since moved away from the EOS M platform to my now Powershot G1X III.

PowerShot G1X III  22mm 1/125 F/14 ISO100

And then, I had an epiphany, the EOS M10, uses the same 18MP APS-C that I prefer the rendition of, and, has a DIGIC6, which is a contributor to half of the AF performance (how much on-sensor AF data being half, and how fast you can process it, the DIGIC6, being the latter half), thus theoretically it’d give me my colors back, and, be faster than the EOS M2, but slower than the EOS M3… And, it can be had for $249, with the EF-M 15-45 f/3.5-6.3 IS STM refurbished on a sale. What a deal! ...And I might be able to live with the AF.

After reviewing loads of samples on the web of the EOS M10 vs the EOS M and M2, I noted they’re not the same to my disappointment. But, I did note it’s somewhere in between the warmth of the EOS M, but the cool of the EOS M3, with some samples being almost like the EOS M / M2. Hmph. Obviously something in that DIGIC6 is getting in the way, even though it is the same sensor thereby CFA…

EOS M10 - Samyang 10mm f/2.8                       EOS M10 - EF-M 15-45 f/3.5-6.3 IS STM

EOS M - EF-M 22mm f/2 STM                             EOS M2 - EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

What could be causing it then? Same sensor, but DIGIC6. DIGIC6 I knew had the newer noise reduction techniques which influence chroma noise which is a very red channel affair. I bookmarked the subject till I could get my hands on some EOS M10 RAWs to process with differing noise reduction levels to confirm my hypothesis.

Recently though, I got to play with the new EOS M50, as I’ve written in a former entry, and noted it has a new Ambience Priority and White Priority Auto White Balance. I assumed from the name that white priority means true whites are white, and ambience priority means that white balance is more a perception of the mood if you will, rather than true to life / true white. This made sense as I know from recently reprocessing the 5DIII files of my cousins wedding I shot some years ago, which I failed to actually distribute as I didn’t take many (as a guest, I let the paid photographers do their job) I reprocessed the RAWs (I keep all my RAWs for just this reason) and applied the latest DLO corrections, white balance adjustments, played with picture profiles on a few, and some lighting tweaks, and noted the 5DIII rendered the indoor lighting with a warm cast. I corrected each shot to true white, but, preferred the original, warm, off notes originally selected by the on-camera (5DIII) AWB. I published the renderings with true whites, despite my personal preference as I gather my cousin being on the younger side, may have a taste for colder tones considering her paid wedding photographers were Sony shooters, I might add, which was a surprise to me at the time and that’s definitely a colder rendering, especially at that time there was no A7RIII or A7III yet, which those still don’t quite have it right yet in my book, but Sony’s latest jpeg engine and white balance defaults are a big, actually huge, step closer, admittedly (but they too fall in the boat of not close enough for my taste buds, your mileage may vary).

5D III - EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM

In any event, I quickly put two and two together and did some online research this time regarding the AWB accuracy improving with revisions of DIGIC and sample comparisons, particularly DIGIC6 and DIGIC 7 evolutions over DIGIC 5, in regard to warm casting. In my opinion, it’s (probably) the auto white balance (AWB) of the DIGIC6 is the missing link as to why the EOS M10 has a rendition in between EOS M and M3 as it has the CFA of the former, but the true white gravitating AWB of the latter. This makes sense as when I was comparing online sample of the EOS M10 vs the EOS M I noted in some cases infrequent cases, the EOS M10 looked like it was the EOS M, but in more cases then not, it didn’t.

EOS M10 - Samyang 10mm f/2.8                       EOS M10 - Samyang 8mm f/3.5

The trouble here is (for me), knowing that it’s the AWB doesn’t really help me. After having corrected 117 pictures white balance by hand just weeks before this revelation, having a AWB I don’t like makes that M10 as far as the east is from the west of being desirable in my book; DPP4 doesn’t permit you to use the newer Ambience or white priority AWB at this time on older camera models, even though it’s a software feature (so I gather). You can of course use old fashion hard WB settings IE daylight, cloudy, shade etc. Also, I don’t do Adobe anymore either, long story I’ll save for later on that.

So that answered that question, the EOS M10 was out. But, what am I going to do for a future camera for a full frame when I go back? This wasn’t looking promising again.

Slight interlude here picture profiles…

As I was looking up Canon’s new (to me) ambience and white priority auto white balance, which by the way, confirmed my suspicion, ambience priority renders tungsten light with a warmer cast, which usually accurately represents the warmer lighting conditions of those atmospheres, classic to older Canons, vs white priority puts the emphasis on whites (something Canon’s been perfecting in those newer DIGICs). I noted the faithful and standard picture profiles in the knowledge base. Canon’s standard picture profile (jpeg engine) gives more punch then what actually exists (this isn’t a surprise if you’ve been reading along) that’s more aesthetically pleasing. Faithful, on the other hand doesn’t do this, as the way Standard gives punch, distributes it by light, which depending what you’re shooting can be a bad concentrated emphasis where the scene demands distributed emphasis. Thus faithful is a good option for those who find Canon’s standard picture profile to give too much oomph, or have a scene where non-emphasis is preferred. I may give it a shot in reprocessing shots that look like they have too much oomph, which for me, is rare.

Back on topic, I was scouring an online forum for some old contributions I had made on this very topic when I came across a couple threads regarding the classic 5D being superior in color to future 5D’s. Interesting thought. The end of that story is those older 5D’s were suspected to have a stronger CFA, and the 5DII after it, had a weaker one, but, apparently that was partly why the 5DII saw some of the benefits in sensor metrics, as a weaker CFA means your colors are going to render differently, but, you’re getting more light at the end of the day. Interesting conclusion, whether or not Canon was/is doing that is another story but the explanation is logical and perhaps Canon’s still doing this, assuming this is the case to partially mitigate the megapixel count bumps but maintain or improve metrics IE ISO sensitivity, etc.

A few weeks later, I had my latest epiphany, the 6D II; it’s gotten some serious flak from reviewers for poor sensor performance. But, it also has the “newest” Canon sensor produced… Hrmmm.

I started reviewing online samples from the 6D II, and noted, they have a much more interesting rendition almost across the board, more in line with classic Canon renderings, not quite, but very close. The 5DIV on the other hand, didn’t, by a good country mile.

6D II - EF 35mm f/2 IS USM                                5D IV - EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM

I had a hypothesis, maybe, Canon brought back some of the stronger color filtering arrays, or, found their ADC (analog to digital conversion) process was having a negative impact on rendering (as mind you, the 80D, around that time frame, we have newer 24MP sensors IE newer chip fabrication and thus possibly different CFAs, and, ADC coming to bear for Canon) and either nixed it, or refined it (and they’re likely to continue refining it).

A quick trip to Dpreview’s studio tool supports that hypothesis, the 6D II has a different rendering then the 5DIV, it renders closer to the cameras before it IE 5DIII / 6D / EOS M. Not quite, but closer. My instincts weren’t deceiving me with those samples.

I did some quick googling and also noted that the 6D II also features both the ambience and white priority AWBs. Canon’s obviously figuring out not everyone wants newer stronger faster better here and is trying to move forward but also (rightly IMO) hold unto the past.

All the sudden the 6D II jumped way up in my book in terms of desirably. All the bells and whistles in the world don’t matter if your color is blah. I’d shoot a different brand, to put nicely, if that were the case.