Canon EOS M50 Image Quality

Here at base ISO, we can see the M50's image quality is very similar to that of its slightly bigger and more expensive brother, the M5. Looking very closely, though, it appears the M50 applies slightly stronger noise reduction by default, as flatter areas appear a little smoother.

Above we compare the M50 to another 24-megapixel APS-C camera, the Fuji X-T100. Both images contain visible sharpening haloes along high-contrast edges, but the X-T100's are much more obtrusive, however the Fuji image is much crisper and more detailed. When looking closely at the images, you can see that the X-T100's image has higher luma noise than the M50's in the shadows, but keep in mind its higher base ISO. The X-T100's image however has lower chroma noise than the M50's. Contrast is much higher from the Canon in our tricky red-leaf swatch giving the impression of greater detail, however the two cameras capture about the same amount of subtle detail. Both cameras produce pleasing color but the Fuji's colors are warmer and generally more saturated.

The image from the Nikon D5600 is sharper, crisper and slightly more detailed than the M50's at base ISO, thanks to the D5600's lack of an AA filter, as well as more aggressive sharpening. We do see higher luminance noise from the Nikon, though, with more obvious sharpening haloes as well. Aliasing artifacts are more visible from the Nikon in general, however it did a pretty good job at avoiding visible moiré patterns we often see in our notorious red-leaf swatch, while still resolving more of the fine thread pattern. We do see indications that the M50's AA filter is fairly weak, though, as ironically moiré patterns are more visible from the Canon in the red-leaf swatch. The Nikon's colors are warmer and more saturated, but not as accurate overall as the Canon's.

The 24-megapixel APS-C Canon M50 has a slight resolution advantage over the 20-megapixel MFT Panasonic GX9, but it isn't resolving significantly more detail in most areas here. (The majority of the resolution advantage is in the width of the image because of its wider 3:2 aspect ratio, as we frame this shot vertically.) The GX9's image is however significantly sharper than the M50's, while containing thinner sharpening haloes. The Panasonic shows higher noise levels (but keep in mind its higher base ISO), yet it does show some minor artifacts from its area-specific noise reduction already here at base ISO; for example rougher edges. The GX9 tends to show more aliasing artifacts as well, thanks to the lack of an optical low-pass filter. Both cameras produce nice colors, though the Panasonic's are a bit brighter in general, while the Canon's are a little more accurate overall.

In this comparison, we pit the Canon M50 against Sony's popular 24-megapixel APS-C mirrorless, the A6300. The Sony has either a very weak or no AA filter which helps maximize sharpness and detail, and its processing produces a crisper, more detailed image without the obvious sharpening haloes produced by the Canon's default settings. However we do see stronger aliasing artifacts from the A6300, especially in the red-leaf fabric. Color is noticeably better from the Canon, though.

Here at ISO 1600, we can see that the M50's default noise reduction has been tweaked, and it's not necessarily for the better. As you can see, fine detail and contrast in our tricky red-leaf swatch has been noticeably reduced compared to the M5 and subtle detail in the mosaic crop is softer, though there are fewer artifacts around high-contrast edges, and noise "grain" in flatter areas appears slightly smoother and more consistent.

The Fuji X-T100 produces a much sharper, crisper, cleaner and more detailed image here at ISO 1600 compared to the Canon M50, though with more obvious sharpening haloes. Colors continue to be brighter and more vibrant from the Fuji as well.

The Nikon D5600 still manages to produce a sharper, crisper image at ISO 1600 though with more noticeable sharpening haloes, however the Canon M50 arguably does a bit better in our tricky red-leaf fabric, at least with contrast. Noise levels are similar, however the Nikon's more aggressive sharpening makes luminance noise somewhat more conspicuous in flatter areas.

The GX9 continues to produce a much crisper image with better fine detail in most areas here at ISO 1600. The Panasonic's more sophisticated noise reduction also leaves behind much less noise in the flatter areas than the Canon's, however its area-specific algorithm does produce some unwanted artifacts in the form of rough edges and a "grain" that has a more "digital" look. Still, it's an easy win for the GX9 here.

Like we saw at base ISO, the Sony A6300 delivers a much sharper image with better detail at ISO 1600, though aliasing artifacts are more visible. Noise levels are comparable, however the noise "grain" from the Canon is more consistent and film-like, while the Sony's noise reduction processing produces some darker pixels and other artifacts which give flatter areas a less natural look.

Similar to what we saw at ISO 1600, the M50 produces a softer image overall and it doesn't do quite as well as the M5 with our troublesome red-leaf swatch, though fine detail in our mosaic crop has fewer artifacts and the noise "grain" pattern is a little smoother.

There's really no contest here at ISO 3200, with the X-T100 producing a much crisper, detailed image with better color and lower noise levels, at least in the shadows and mid-tones. In brighter areas, the Canon is actually cleaner, likely in part due to its far less aggressive sharpening. The M50 also produces better contrast in our troublesome red-leaf swatch, though fine detail is actually a bit better from the Fuji.

Once again, the Nikon D5600 delivers a much sharper, slightly more detailed image than the M50 at ISO 3200. Overall noise levels appear just a bit lower from the Nikon, but its more aggressive processing means the "grain" pattern isn't quite as uniform as the Canon's. The Nikon renders a lot more fine detail in the red-leaf fabric, but some of it is distorted and false, and contrast is a little better from the Canon.

Once again, the GX9 delivers a crisper, more detailed image than the M50 here at ISO 3200, while at the same time controlling luminance noise much more effectively in flatter areas.

The Sony A6300 also continues to produce a much crisper, more detailed image than the M50 at ISO 3200, however its context-specific noise reduction generates more artifacts in flatter areas and along edges than Canon's more traditional approach to noise reduction. The M50 blurs our tricky red-leaf fabric lot more here at ISO 3200, but much of the Sony's apparent detail in that fabric is false. Still, the Sony easily wins this battle.