Review: Canon EOS M3

[Canon Rumors]

<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>

 

[Markintosh]

good review, but author is wrong about body material — EOS-M has all metal body.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

 

[Sporgon]

<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.

 

[stephenhynds]

I recently picked up an EOS M here in the UK. Argos were selling the package with Body, 18-55 and the 90EX flash for £199. I managed to find an ef-m 22mm and ef-m to ef adaptor on ebay, brand new, for £75 too. At the time my main camera was a 550D and in a good few ways the EOS M was a noticeably better than it. I've since picked up a 70D which wipes the floor with it, but at the same time I'm really pleased with the M.

The 18-55 is to my eyes a nicer lens than the EF-S 18-55, and the 22mm is much better than its size should warrant.

I've found that I'll keep it in my bag I take to work and will happily go for a walk at lunch time and take some photos in the city.

It's a clichéd saying that the best camera is the one you have with you, but I've found in this case having a smaller, lighter more portable but still nice quality camera with me every day is getting me to take more pictures and enjoy the hobby more.

 

[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.

 

[gimmick.austin]

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

 

[WillT]

Anyone looking to buy this should look at one of the Amazon sites from the EU. You will get a 2 year Canon warranty.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

<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.

 

[SUNDOG04]

The camera is already designed. It doesn't seem like there is anything to loose by offering it for sale in the U.S. I am sure I am missing something here, but not sure what it is.

 

[sunnyVan]

I'm very happy with the m3. And I agree with most of what he said.

I love shooting m3 along with the 5dmk3. It was never realistic to carry two dslr before but now it's possible with the size and weight of m3. One major drawback of M is the lack of control dials. So often when I just wanted to adjust exposure compensation I'd accidentally hit the wrong button. The m3 solves that problem (although it is a bit stiff and hard to turn in my opinion). The m3 feels more substantial in my hand compared to the M. I love that solid feeling. The evf exceeded my expectations and is only 40g so I think I will keep it and bring along. With a small camera people won't pay attention to what I'm doing, and I do get more candid shots just because I'm looking down at a tilt screen and they think I'm reviewing pictures.

He didnt mention about video quality. I personally am very pleased with what I can get with the m3. A small camera that takes decent still pictures and videos and can accept ef lenses! Can't beat that!

Is mirrorless the future of photography? Nobody knows for sure. Not even Canon knows. But I'll reiterate what I said in another thread that ef-m seems to have a brighter future than ef-s. Maybe I'm only speaking for myself. But if I need ultimate low light performance I grab my full frame camera with ef lens on. Other times I just want something light and small. Efs is nowhere as small as efm. It's a dated compromise approach and we don't need that anymore.

 

[dak723]

....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.

The DOF and quality of Full frame has nothing to do with being mirrorless or not, since Sony is already making mirrorless FF cameras. If and/or when the EVF of mirrorless can approximate the OVF of DSLRs, then will be no reason for the mirror, it seems to me.

 

[sunnyVan]

The camera is already designed. It doesn't seem like there is anything to loose by offering it for sale in the U.S. I am sure I am missing something here, but not sure what it is.

Maybe canon usa bled too much for the M

 

[Dylan777]

....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.

The DOF and quality of Full frame has nothing to do with being mirrorless or not, since Sony is already making mirrorless FF cameras. If and/or when the EVF of mirrorless can approximate the OVF of DSLRs, then will be no reason for the mirror, it seems to me.

Don't forget to add AF-tracking to it

Like many others, I enjoy shooting with FF mirrorless(a7s) + native shorter FL primes. Size, weight and swivel screen do make FF mirrorless more convenient to carry around. Not to mention, IQ is on par with FF DSLR.

Here is 40,000ISO with a7s + FE 55mm

Shallow DOF is not bad for 55mm @ f1.8

or even @ f2

 

[Tugela]

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.

 

[tomsop]

The problem with this review is failing to review it in the context of the earlier model. Apparently what I'm reading from other review sites is that despite claiming faster autofocus that it is faster under bright light But under less than ideal conditions or with ef lenses that there is no significant or perceptible improvement on autofocus speed which means in terms of autofocus we are dealing with the same camera as the original M.

Perhaps people who have actually held the camera can comment on their real world experiences with autofocus as compared to the original m.

 

[Tugela]

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

Clearly you haven't taken many 1 series camera apart, there is no spare room in them at all. Besides, the widest 1 series ever was the 1V. With the PB-E2 on the 1VHS is taller than any of the digital 1series too I believe. Try fitting three computers, two CF card slots a ff sensor three screens and a range of other electronics and sensors, WB, microphones etc in the space of a roll of film and the cassette, so yes, the digital bodies are a bit fatter than the film bodies were but it is no style statement.

 

[SRix]

I'm not too sure what the reviewer is on, but I'd like some of it! The AF speed is still slow.

This video (not in English, but still very useful) is worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyCMLe-LcZI

 

[tomsop]

Maybe that was why not released in USA too embarrassed that ad is still slower than a drunk man trying to focus his eyes.