Hands-on with the Canon EOS M3

[noncho]

I had M3 for testing last week and it's a mixed bag...

Here are 2 samples versus M1(24mp are scaled down to match 18):
100 ISO

3200 ISO

Can you say which one is 3 years older? I don't see the point of this more megapixel/same image quality sensor...

I'm writing a small review right now and I'll share more when I finish it.

 

[kphoto99]

I had M3 for testing last week and it's a mixed bag...

Here are 2 samples versus M1(24mp are scaled down to match 18):

Can you say which one is 3 years older? I don't see the point of this more megapixel/same image quality sensor...

I'm writing a small review right now and I'll share more when I finish it.

How about up-scaling the 18 to 24 and comparing there. With 24 you can crop more and have same quality.

 

[noncho]

I never do up-scaling, it's not fair to compare the software ability to create 6 million pixels

But here are ful size 6000x4000 samples:
100 ISO - http://www.nonchoiliev.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IMG_8648_Full3.jpg
3200 ISO - http://www.nonchoiliev.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IMG_8644_Full.jpg

I like:

+ Better AF with STM lenses.

+ Much more opportunities/button for control and better menu.

+ Tilting screen.

+ Wi-Fi/NFC.



I don't like:

– Very slow burst with continuous focus.

– Mixed results for AF speed with EF lenses and adaptor.

– No bright lenses above 22mm. It's a must for Canon to have native 50/85/135mm, 3,5 years after the M announce.


I have just posted my blog with some samples and other opinions - http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=bg&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nonchoiliev.com%2Fblog%2F2767&sandbox=1

 

[bainsybike]

Here are 2 samples versus M1(24mp are scaled down to match 18):

Colours look better in the image on the right at 100 ISO (M1?). Is the lighting different?

 

[East Wind Photography]

I never do up-scaling, it's not fair to compare the software ability to create 6 million pixels

But here are ful size 6000x4000 samples:
100 ISO - http://www.nonchoiliev.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IMG_8648_Full3.jpg
3200 ISO - http://www.nonchoiliev.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IMG_8644_Full.jpg

I like:

+ Better AF with STM lenses.

+ Much more opportunities/button for control and better menu.

+ Tilting screen.

+ Wi-Fi/NFC.



I don't like:

– Very slow burst with continuous focus.

– Mixed results for AF speed with EF lenses and adaptor.

– No bright lenses above 22mm. It's a must for Canon to have native 50/85/135mm, 3,5 years after the M announce.


I have just posted my blog with some samples and other opinions - http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=bg&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nonchoiliev.com%2Fblog%2F2767&sandbox=1

Seems to me the point of the M line is to allow you to use EF series of lenses. I use my M3 with 6 different EF L lenses and with the adapter, they all focus very fast...faster than the the STM lenses which are slow by design for video purpose. The fastest AF on all of my lenses is with the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. It is on par with AF speed on my 5dIII. I would need sophisticated measuring equipment to tell which one is actually faster.

The 22mm and 18-55 kit lenses are great lenses if you want to use it as a point and shoot. I dont see them making faster M mounts when all of the EF line works as well.

 

[noncho]

Here are 2 samples versus M1(24mp are scaled down to match 18):

Colours look better in the image on the right at 100 ISO (M1?). Is the lighting different?

It's the same, a kitchen light, not so accurate equipment. M1 is on the right.


East Wind,

If I want to use EF lenses I'll go with my 70D. It has better AF, burst and a grip comfortable for using large lenses.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Here are 2 samples versus M1(24mp are scaled down to match 18):

Colours look better in the image on the right at 100 ISO (M1?). Is the lighting different?

It's the same, a kitchen light, not so accurate equipment. M1 is on the right.


East Wind,

If I want to use EF lenses I'll go with my 70D. It has better AF, burst and a grip comfortable for using large lenses.

So my point is if you don't want to use EF lenses with your M then maybe a point and shoot compact with a big zoom would be a better less expensive option. The reason the M was developed was for EF interchangeability. Likely the only lenses to be developed going forward for it would be big zooms 18-200 or 70-300 to satisfy the point and shoot needs. The market is so slim for it that the M3 is not even offered in the US. Costs more money to support the parts and repairs here than what they would make off sales. With that kind of market, development will be next to nil.

 

[noncho]

I don't need point & shoot camera, I'm using M with 11-22 for wide and with 22/2 for a compact bright combo. There is no such fixed lens camera.
I need small and relatively fast native long lenses. Even with EF 50 1.4/85 1.8 + adapter M don't look and feel awesome.

 

[Rocky]

I don't need point & shoot camera, I'm using M with 11-22 for wide and with 22/2 for a compact bright combo. There is no such fixed lens camera.
I need small and relatively fast native long lenses. Even with EF 50 1.4/85 1.8 + adapter M don't look and feel awesome.

I use my M the same way. I do have the 18-55 EF-M ($100) also. I use this outfit ( all 3 lenses)for travelling. in term of sharpness, all of them are good enough or me. I rank the sharpness as follow: 22mm, 11-22mm, 18-55 mm.
Thanks for the interesting review on M3.

 

[noncho]

I have 18-55, but I'm not using it so often as the other 2 lenses

 

[archiea]

ugh, this is exhausting... stop pixel peeping and sit take photos!