Review: Canon EOS M3

[ajfotofilmagem]

I disagree with the author about the future of photography being mirrorless. If that was the case then medium format would have died already. There's always a need for high pixel, high dynamic range, and large glass.

BUT for walk around I use a Rebel SL1 (middle camera) with 24mm pancake... Its as small as I want a camera to be and is infinitely flexible. And it fits in a Tamrac Zoom 20 case - that's a mirrorless case folks

In the old days FF cameras were about the size of an A7. Cameras like the 5D and 1D are far larger than they need to be. It is a pseudo fashion stemming from the pre-digital grips pros used on their cameras, nothing more. People wanted to "look like pros", so they bought cameras with giant grips. The primary purpose of those old grips however was to store batteries and power drives, now they are just used to make cameras big.

My first SLR film, was Olympus OM-1. Small but heavy, and ergonomics was torture.

When I started with autofocus SLR, was the Canon EOS300V. Small, light and good ergonomics.

I thought that the full frame DSLR were very large, but now I understand why. The battery life, mechanism to X-sync 1/250 and maximum speed shutter 1/8000 requires size and weight greater than Canon 6D has.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks for an excellent review. I've spent a lot of time with the original M over past several years, and despite its notable failings I still have a lot of affection for it. I am certainly interested in getting an M3 to compare with the M directly. Your AF servo sequences look like an improvement over what I'm accustomed to seeing with the M1.

The biggest challenge for me to review it is due to it not being sold in North America. None of my suppliers that send me gear actually stock it, so I will have to buy one from another market and hope I haven't made a poor investment. I think I would rather spend the money for a 70D, though.

Thank you for taking the time to write the review and to share. I know from a lot of experience how much work goes into something like this.

 

[Dylan777]

Statements like this always make me laugh: "Mirrorless cameras are the future of photography"

I laugh because mirrorless cameras are selling on a yearly decline, faster than DSLR sales are declining.
I personally think (notice what I did there, instead of making a stupid global statement, I made a personal opinion) that there will always be a market for mirrorless cameras. But I don't think it will grow any bigger or become the only market in cameras. There will always be a market for people who won't compromise quality and depth of field for portability. For me, I use full frame and have done for many years in both a personal and professional context. I see nothing in the mirrorless format which attracts me. I like my 400mm f2.8 LIS, my 85L and 35L's. I appreciate what they offer me as a photographer, regardless of how heavy they are.

Dinosaurs thought things were going awesomely well and those little mammal critters were a joke.

Then one summer day things changed, now mammals rule and there are no more dinosaurs.

The same will happen in photography. Mirrorless is the future, mirrors are the past.

I think we should wait and see how both systems have to offer. AF speed on mirrorless systems have been improved. AF tracking is still bad for FF line. Battery life is not that great due to smaller size.

 

[JonAustin]

"Mirrorless cameras are the future of photography. At some point the bulk of a camera like the 5dmkiii + high end lens makes you a worse photographer."

I have no idea what the future of photography is (nor, I doubt, does the author), but the blanket statement that "bulky" gear (however you define it) makes you a worse photographer is simply bogus.

It was probably a throwaway line included simply to grab the attention of potential readers. I haven't read the article yet; probably won't, since I'm not in the market for a mirrorless. The whole reason I migrated from rangefinders to the SLR product space in the first place was for the optical, through the lens viewfinder. I find EVFs and rear screens to be poor substitutes for a good quality OVF.

In the old days FF cameras were about the size of an A7. Cameras like the 5D and 1D are far larger than they need to be. It is a pseudo fashion stemming from the pre-digital grips pros used on their cameras, nothing more. People wanted to "look like pros", so they bought cameras with giant grips. The primary purpose of those old grips however was to store batteries and power drives, now they are just used to make cameras big.

Oh, I don't know; my camera grips (all three of them) are pretty full once I've loaded two batteries per into them. But the only time I use them is when I need the extended battery life or will be making extensive use of the portrait orientation controls. I never gave a thought to how they made the camera look. (And there are much smaller SLRs available than the 1D and 5D lines.)

 

[privatebydesign]

Yes and small phones were the future, until they weren't.

 

[Lee Jay]

Every time I use an EVF I remember why mirrorless isn't the future for me. They just flat suck. Period. I put up with them for video because I have no choice but OVFs are like fresh medium rare fillet mignon and EVFs are like week old pop tarts.

 

[JonAustin]

... OVFs are like fresh medium rare fillet mignon and EVFs are like week old pop tarts.

Wow, now there's a technical comparison that I can understand!

 

[SoullessPolack]

Every time I use an EVF I remember why mirrorless isn't the future for me. They just flat suck. Period. I put up with them for video because I have no choice but OVFs are like fresh medium rare fillet mignon and EVFs are like week old pop tarts.

Lol, bro, your statement is pretty much saying that EVFs won't improve. Yes, they may flat suck right now. Luckily, and I'm not sure if you're aware of this concept, technology progresses. EVFs now are better than they were 2 years ago. In 5 years, they will be even better than they are now. How much better is an unknown. I have no doubt, that at some point, EVFs will be as useful, or more useful, than OVFs. I'm not saying they'll be more response than OVFs, because you can't really compete against the velocity of light, but you have to remember, all we need is for it to be fast enough as to be imperceptible to the human eye.

That said, for the near future, I will continue using cameras with OVFs. But, instead of decrying the whole future of EVFs, I wait with eagerness at the possibilities that may arise in 5, 10, 20 years.

 

[SoullessPolack]

I agree with the part highlighted in red here, but really it has nothing to do with mirrorless vs dslrs. Many dslrs and 'high end lenses' are much bigger than they need to be, especially in shorter focal lengths. Larger size is often an advantage, but for the vast majority of the time it isn't, yet the fashion now seems to be for large dslr bodies and even larger lenses.

I attach a picture of the old Takumar 55mm f/1.8 - certainly a 'high end lens', yet look at the size of it ! 49mm filter thread. Likewise the lens beside the camera is a 135mm ! But a real telephoto; its length measures 85mm, whereas nowadays many 'telephoto' lenses are not telephoto at all.

The large size today is the fashion, nothing more. Given the way dslr sales compare with mirrorless it would suggest that people spending many bucks on a camera today still want some size for their money.

Bro, you're wrong. Those lenses you talk about are missing some things which modern lenses have. Let's go through the list, okay?

-Autofocus - this adds a a fair bit of size to the lens
-Image Stabilization - another thing that adds size to the lens
-Better optics - while there are many fine lenses from many years ago, they really don't hold up to modern lenses in terms of sharpness, aberrations, coma, flare, etc. Of course, you can argue that your old lens has as little flare as a modern lens, or as little aberration as your modern lens, but remember, modern lenses are accounting for all of these. To do this requires more elements in the lens. More glass means you then have to have an even larger autofocus system to account for that added heft.

So no, lenses aren't big because it's popular. It's because they need to be for their optical formula. Do you really think a company is going to make a lens larger than it has to? You know what that means? More materials that aren't truly necessary. Perhaps you've never run a business, but you typically try to reduce materials and expenses rather than increasing them.

Do yourself a favor. I'm sure you'll be too chickenshit to do it, but open up a modern lens. There is no wasted space in there. It's not like AF lenses are a bag of potato chips with a crapload of empty space. Things are crammed in there.

That said, older lenses are lovely, and I own a fair few of them. But, when my #1 goal is image quality and performance, I always reach for my modern lenses.

 

[Aglet]

Statements like this always make me laugh: "Mirrorless cameras are the future of photography"

I laugh because mirrorless cameras are selling on a yearly decline, faster than DSLR sales are declining.
I personally think (notice what I did there, instead of making a stupid global statement, I made a personal opinion) that there will always be a market for mirrorless cameras. But I don't think it will grow any bigger or become the only market in cameras. There will always be a market for people who won't compromise quality and depth of field for portability. For me, I use full frame and have done for many years in both a personal and professional context. I see nothing in the mirrorless format which attracts me. I like my 400mm f2.8 LIS, my 85L and 35L's. I appreciate what they offer me as a photographer, regardless of how heavy they are.

Laugh as long as you can, you may be in for a surprise.
you DO realize what's inside a mirrorless camera, don't you?

FWIW, I wouldn't buy one that sez "canon" on it or I might end up with an opinion similar to the one you're expressing.

 

[grainier]

I agree with the part highlighted in red here, but really it has nothing to do with mirrorless vs dslrs. Many dslrs and 'high end lenses' are much bigger than they need to be, especially in shorter focal lengths. Larger size is often an advantage, but for the vast majority of the time it isn't, yet the fashion now seems to be for large dslr bodies and even larger lenses.

I attach a picture of the old Takumar 55mm f/1.8 - certainly a 'high end lens', yet look at the size of it ! 49mm filter thread. Likewise the lens beside the camera is a 135mm ! But a real telephoto; its length measures 85mm, whereas nowadays many 'telephoto' lenses are not telephoto at all.

The large size today is the fashion, nothing more. Given the way dslr sales compare with mirrorless it would suggest that people spending many bucks on a camera today still want some size for their money.

Let's compare apples to apples. Canon FD 50/1.4 is an ounce heavier and the same length as Canon EF 50/1.4, FD 35/2 is ever so slightly heavier than EF 35/2 IS. Old Nikkor-H 85/1.8 has the same dimensions as Canon EF 85/1.8 and feels heftier. And so on, and so forth. And re: size of the camera - have you ever seen an F2 with motor drive and 250 exposures back?

 

[Lee Jay]

Every time I use an EVF I remember why mirrorless isn't the future for me. They just flat suck. Period. I put up with them for video because I have no choice but OVFs are like fresh medium rare fillet mignon and EVFs are like week old pop tarts.

Lol, bro, your statement is pretty much saying that EVFs won't improve. Yes, they may flat suck right now. Luckily, and I'm not sure if you're aware of this concept, technology progresses. EVFs now are better than they were 2 years ago. In 5 years, they will be even better than they are now. How much better is an unknown. I have no doubt, that at some point, EVFs will be as useful, or more useful, than OVFs. I'm not saying they'll be more response than OVFs, because you can't really compete against the velocity of light, but you have to remember, all we need is for it to be fast enough as to be imperceptible to the human eye.

Incorrect.

That said, for the near future, I will continue using cameras with OVFs. But, instead of decrying the whole future of EVFs, I wait with eagerness at the possibilities that may arise in 5, 10, 20 years.

EVFs are worse now, in important ways, than they were 30 years ago. I've seen no signs that EVFs are improving in meaningful ways in the last 10 years.

 

[tomsop]

#1) this review is filed under Lenses in the forum

#2) AF was really weak on the M - reports suggest little if any improvement, especially under low light conditions - true?

 

[jefflinde]

I always find it funny when people talk about the compact size of a mirror-less and how that is the biggest advantage. but then in the next breath they say that small bodies are just really awkward with fast telephoto lenses and that they want some with some mass. They also talk about how "cheap" light small cameras feel and then boast about the quality feel of a hefty DSLR. Then they want super small pancake lenses so it can go in their pocket (not sure what pocket Fuji or Oly. fits in but ok) but they want it to be a F1.2 with 5 stops of IS and no CA or vignetting.

I realize there are different strokes for different folks but some of these articles are comical. I just with the M3 would be sold in the US and they would release more EF-M glass. even if they are shrunk down copies of current EF lenses with the form factor and construction of the EF-M lenses.

 

[Zv]

Thanks for an excellent review. I've spent a lot of time with the original M over past several years, and despite its notable failings I still have a lot of affection for it. I am certainly interested in getting an M3 to compare with the M directly. Your AF servo sequences look like an improvement over what I'm accustomed to seeing with the M1.

The biggest challenge for me to review it is due to it not being sold in North America. None of my suppliers that send me gear actually stock it, so I will have to buy one from another market and hope I haven't made a poor investment. I think I would rather spend the money for a 70D, though.

Thank you for taking the time to write the review and to share. I know from a lot of experience how much work goes into something like this.

I would be very interested in your review Dustin.

 

[TeT]

<p>For the parts of the planet that actually get the opportunity to buy the brand new Canon EOS M3, this is a worthwhile read. For the rest of us, we’re going to have to decide if we want to buy a “grey market” M3.</p>
<p>Dan Berdal of DnK Photography has done a very “real world” review of the little camera and compared it to his workhorse, the EOS 5D Mark III.</p>
<blockquote><p>Mirrorless cameras are the future of photography. At some point the bulk of a camera like the 5dmkiii + high end lens makes you a worse photographer. If you’re serious about photography, but your current camera is so big that you don’t use it, then this is a great option. Personally I think that this camera will be a great walk around camera. The image quality is more than sufficient for capturing life memories and travel shots.</p></blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.dnkphotography.com/blog/wedding-photographers/hands-on-with-the-canon-eos-m3/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.dnkphotography.com/" target="_blank">DnK</a>] via [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/mirrorless.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>

I agree with the part highlighted in red here, but really it has nothing to do with mirrorless vs dslrs. Many dslrs and 'high end lenses' are much bigger than they need to be, especially in shorter focal lengths. Larger size is often an advantage, but for the vast majority of the time it isn't, yet the fashion now seems to be for large dslr bodies and even larger lenses.

I attach a picture of the old Takumar 55mm f/1.8 - certainly a 'high end lens', yet look at the size of it ! 49mm filter thread. Likewise the lens beside the camera is a 135mm ! But a real telephoto; its length measures 85mm, whereas nowadays many 'telephoto' lenses are not telephoto at all.

The large size today is the fashion, nothing more. Given the way dslr sales compare with mirrorless it would suggest that people spending many bucks on a camera today still want some size for their money.

FF Mirrorless with fast low light capable focus and good ergonomics... That is the future... It is not here yet.

Fast low light capable focus is lots of high iso noise.....that's not the future.....f1.4 and f1.2 optics is the way to go and they are big and heavy. The results are like night and day. The 85 f1.2L practically makes it's own light.

No it is not. Lots of High ISO Noise is from poorly lit pictures taken with High ISO settings and or poor focus.

My 6D can acquire focus in poorly lit areas whether the ISO is on auto 100 or 10000.

 

[Aglet]

Not quite on topic but partially relevant regarding ML systems.
I just did a quick test using a high contrast target:
- Ambient light measured at -1.8 EV using Sekonic L-558
- Olympus EM-10 with 4/3 lens attached (12-60mm f/2.8-4.0) via adapter and set to 60mm.
- AF was fast and accurate in this condition.

From experience, I know it can work in lower light and I know my Fuji XT1 can AF in lower still lower light. I'll
have to measure it when it's back. I'd estimate the XT1 can AF at another 1 or 2 EV lower than my EM10.

FWIW, EM10 exposure was 1/10s at f/4 at 25k iso and was a bit underexposed so seems to agree with the Sekonic.

Lowered the available light, 1/4s at f/4 at 25k iso and now about 2 stops underexposed and the system did have to hunt to AF for almost 2 seconds. EVF got a bit noisy but still perfectly useable.
So now we're about -4 to -5 EV incident light and still managing to AF with an f/4.0 lens on a consumer level mirrorless body. If using a typical f/1.4 lens, as oft specified with SLR bodies, then that's another 2 stops of performance (-6 to -7 EV)

So, I don't buy the argument mirrorless can't AF well in low light.

 

[Tugela]

Every time I use an EVF I remember why mirrorless isn't the future for me. They just flat suck. Period. I put up with them for video because I have no choice but OVFs are like fresh medium rare fillet mignon and EVFs are like week old pop tarts.

Lol, bro, your statement is pretty much saying that EVFs won't improve. Yes, they may flat suck right now. Luckily, and I'm not sure if you're aware of this concept, technology progresses. EVFs now are better than they were 2 years ago. In 5 years, they will be even better than they are now. How much better is an unknown. I have no doubt, that at some point, EVFs will be as useful, or more useful, than OVFs. I'm not saying they'll be more response than OVFs, because you can't really compete against the velocity of light, but you have to remember, all we need is for it to be fast enough as to be imperceptible to the human eye.

Incorrect.

That said, for the near future, I will continue using cameras with OVFs. But, instead of decrying the whole future of EVFs, I wait with eagerness at the possibilities that may arise in 5, 10, 20 years.

EVFs are worse now, in important ways, than they were 30 years ago. I've seen no signs that EVFs are improving in meaningful ways in the last 10 years.

I'm guessing that means you haven't looked through an EFV in the last 10 years.

An EFV can supply vastly more information about what the camera is actually seeing (you know, the important bit, not your eyes). An OFV simply cannot compete with that.

 

[Proscribo]

An EFV can supply vastly more information about what the camera is actually seeing (you know, the important bit, not your eyes). An OFV simply cannot compete with that.

Even the worst OVF can't supply you with the kind of lag that an EVF has.

Anyhow, the point is that both of these VFs have their goods and bads. It's not like one is better than the other in every aspect, and I think it will be like that for a long time if not, like, forever. Then again there could be other reasons why in the future mostly EVFs will be used, for example personally I think that at some point, all the af is going to happen on the sensor because of the accuracy. That would simply force the use of EVFs.

 

[Lee Jay]

Every time I use an EVF I remember why mirrorless isn't the future for me. They just flat suck. Period. I put up with them for video because I have no choice but OVFs are like fresh medium rare fillet mignon and EVFs are like week old pop tarts.

Lol, bro, your statement is pretty much saying that EVFs won't improve. Yes, they may flat suck right now. Luckily, and I'm not sure if you're aware of this concept, technology progresses. EVFs now are better than they were 2 years ago. In 5 years, they will be even better than they are now. How much better is an unknown. I have no doubt, that at some point, EVFs will be as useful, or more useful, than OVFs. I'm not saying they'll be more response than OVFs, because you can't really compete against the velocity of light, but you have to remember, all we need is for it to be fast enough as to be imperceptible to the human eye.

Incorrect.

That said, for the near future, I will continue using cameras with OVFs. But, instead of decrying the whole future of EVFs, I wait with eagerness at the possibilities that may arise in 5, 10, 20 years.

EVFs are worse now, in important ways, than they were 30 years ago. I've seen no signs that EVFs are improving in meaningful ways in the last 10 years.

I'm guessing that means you haven't looked through an EFV in the last 10 years.

An EFV can supply vastly more information about what the camera is actually seeing (you know, the important bit, not your eyes). An OFV simply cannot compete with that.

Wrong. I have three different kinds of EVF capable cameras right now. Most of the extra information they can display is distracting and I shut it off for that reason. They also don't show you but a few percent of what the sensor is seeing. The rest is clipped by poor dynamic range and color gamut. OVFs show you a much more realistic picture of what the sensor is seeing.