It's ironic how sure-footed Canon has been with its DSLR line and how comparatively awkward they have been in the mirrorless segment. The EOS M has long been the “red-headed stepchild” of Canon’s camera lineup. Canon wanted a piece of the growing mirrorless system market with their DSLR-like sensors and miniature bodies, but when the EOS M came to the market in June of 2012 it felt a step behind the competition in many ways. It was also priced a little too high to be competitive, and sales lagged. Interest (if not profits) got a temporary boost in the North American market in the middle of 2013 when the “firesale” began that saw the price drop by well more than half. I jumped in at that point, and found that despite some obvious shortcomings the camera was actually very, very useful. I’ve used it in multiple countries as a lighter option when I didn’t want to carry heavier kit, and I’ve added a bunch of images to my personal portfolio that I think are fantastic. The sensor on it was good – really good, in fact. It put other crop sensor bodies that I used to shame in the image quality department.
But development stalled. The system launched with only two available lenses (the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM and the EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM). The lenses were both lauded for excellent build quality and optical performance (particularly the 22mm “pancake”), but photographers wanted more options. But things got a little weird. Canon eventually did produce two more excellent lenses (a 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM wide angle lens along with later producing the 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM telephoto), but did not initially release either lens to the American market (arguably the largest in the world). They eventually released the EOS M2 in early 2014, but it was widely viewed as a very incremental update and again was not released to the American market. In the meantime stock of the existing EOS M gear was dwindling on shelves and in warehouses, and the system seemed to be dying a slow death.
But then earlier this year the EOS M3 was announced and then released to the Asian market, with some interesting marketing videos and a feature set that seemed to address a lot of the current criticisms. I found it interesting enough that I took the plunge and imported one from Japan. My twelve year old son Samuel took over the original M body, and is producing some amazing images with it. You can follow his Instagram account here: Samuel Abbott. I've been using the M3 since late July and have logged several thousand images with it, so I feel like I can really report as a photographer on my findings. If you want to read my complete findings, take a look at my full review here. Since I imported the M3 Canon has gotten on board in North America once again and has brought the M3 along with the unreleased lenses to market.
The subject of lenses highlights an area where Canon has really lagged in its development. To date Canon has had but four lenses, though a fifth lens has just been announced alongside the new EOS M10 budget mirrorless (smaller, lighter, and a bit cheaper than the M3. It has the older 18MP sensor rather than the M3's 24 MP). That lens is the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM. I doubt too many are going to jump up and down over this focal length (although it does correspond to the classic 24-70mm focal length – very useful!) and aperture speed (slow!), but it looks to have a few nice tricks up its tiny sleeves. It is a collapsible zoom, storing at a tiny 1.75″/45.5mm. The 15mm wide end is very nice, equating to 24mm on a 35mm/full frame body – a very useful focal length for landscape work. The EF-M 18-55mm is 2.4″/61mm long and weighs 210g compared to the paltry 130g for the 15-45mm, so the new lens certainly wins for being small and light. I've not tested it optically, but thus far all of the EF-M lenses have actually been very good optically. Other lenses include:
- EF-M 22mm f/2 STM (so far the only real “must have” for the system. Super small, very light, and optically excellent.)
- EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM (Universally acclaimed as a fantastic wide angle lens that punches way above its weight).
- EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM (Kit lens that is a little better than the EF-S counterpart, but not exceptional).
- EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM (once again this is optically superior to the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM, but at the cost of a slower aperture and smaller zoom range).
You'll note one glaring problem in this line-up of now five (when the 15-45mm arrives) native lenses – there is a LOT of overlap. The 55-200 STM is only lens to go above 55mm. Furthermore, they are almost all (with the exception of the lone prime) very slow lenses, with the final two hitting a maximum aperture of f/6.3 on the long end. As a result, the 22mm pancake lens remains the lone native option for use in low light shooting. This is one more area where Canon really, really needs to show support for the system. There is no real portrait lens available for the system, nor is there a macro option. These, to me, need to be Canon's priority in lens development. An equivalent to the excellent EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro could do a reasonable job of addressing both those concerns. One exciting thing to note is that since the announcement to bring the EOS M3 to the North American market there has been an announcement from Rokinon of both a 50mm f/1.2 (I'm very excited about that!) and a 21mm f/1.4. The former provides (finally) a fast portrait prime lens for the mount (about an 80mm equivalent) while the latter provides a fast(er) wide angle prime (approximately 35mm equivalent). Both of these will be manual focus only, but fortunately the M3 is far more forgiving of manual focus than, well, just about any other Canon body. I'm less excited about the 21mm simply because Canon's 22mm f/2 STM is a fantastic lens already plus has autofocus. It is my most used lens with the system because it is incredibly compact and yet can still do this:
Still, outside of the Tamron 18-200 VC all other third party lenses to date are manual focus only, and, as such, will lack broad appeal. The latest rumor to hit Canon Rumors is that a 15mm f/2 STM lens alongside a 35mm f/1.8 STM are scheduled to hit the system next year. Any new lens announcement is welcome when there are so few lenses, but neither of these really address the biggest needs in the lineup. At the very least it is encouraging to see some kind of new development for the EOS M platform. Here's some of my reviews of the various existing EOS M products:
Canon EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Review (Just finished!)
Finally, if you prefer to watch your reviews, take a look here:
The EOS M3 is now available to purchase in the North American market: should you buy it?
First, the Bad News
My time with the EOS M3 has left me conflicted. While Canon has really advanced the system in its design, ergonomics, and even image quality, there are some serious quirks that contribute to the feeling of a somewhat unfinished camera. In some cases it even seems like they have taken some steps backward from the EOS M1. It feels like the development team didn't start with all the good things about the EOS M/M2 and build upon them but rather started from scratch and overlooked some of the fundamentals. I'm afraid the end result will be a camera that for many potential buyers still seems to lag behind the competition. I've been using the M3 quite extensively for the past three months, and certain “quirks” have made themselves manifest during ongoing usage of the camera. Here are the standouts:
1. Auto Exposure bracketing reverts to single shot speeds of about 1 frame per second, making it very difficult to do handheld HDR (and negatively impacting HDR from a tripod, too). There is an HDR mode on the camera, but that mode takes over all control of aperture, shutter speed, and also reverts to JPEG only. The exposure blending is done in camera (with all of the inherit limitations) and you are left with only the combined single JPEG image. The M1 did not have this same quirk; shooting in AEB had the same frame rate as normal burst shooting. This feels like it should be addressed in a firmware update.
2. The original M allowed you to tighten up your focus by being able to “zoom” into the image 5x or 10x and then refocus. The M3 also allows you to zoom in, but when you partially hold down the shutter to focus, the zoom function temporarily reverts to the non-magnified view to focus. Once focus is locked the image returns to the previous state of zoom. This quirk prevents you from being able to achieve more “pinpoint” focus. Ironically you can manually focus while zoomed in, but you cannot autofocus. Considering that this was not a part of the original M’s functionality, this feels like another bug that needs fixing by a firmware update. On a positive note the overall autofocus is much more accurate than the original M.
3. On this same note, another quirk is that you cannot magnify the image at all when in video mode. This isn't unusual during video capture, but the M3 doesn't even allow for it before video capture commences. This is another step back from the M1 and quite a frustration for those of us who like to use manual focus lenses for video. I have had to shift over into a stills shooting mode, dial in my focus, and then come back to video mode.
4. Body’s construction (not shape) feels like a step back from the M Classic. When I first got the M1 I was immediately impressed by how solid and dense it felt despite its small size. The M3 feels less professional grade and more commercial grade despite having a more robust shape and grip. But this is only perception: the M3 is actually made from magnesium alloy and coated to match Canon’s high end camera bodies.
5. Another oddity is that the choice to select AdobeRGB color space is missing from the menu; I can’t recall using a Canon camera without this option, and the reason is…
6. The menu is more Powershot than DSLR. For some crazy reason the designers chose the Powershot style menu over the familiar (to DSLR users) Canon DSLR menu that has always been lauded for being logical and functional. The end result is a menu that feels like it is lacking some essential customization elements.
7. One final quirk is that in some situations the M3 introduces a greenish cast that is both very “unCanon-like” and different from the original M. Here's an example taken with the 22mm f/2 STM.
I'm not quite sure what causes this issue, but yet again it feels like a little quirk that a good firmware update could correct. Fortunately a recent rumor around here suggests that an update may come in 2016 for the M3; it is definitely needed!
At this stage it might seem that I’m down on the camera, but that’s not actually the case. I would suggest instead that it is the overall progress of the line in so many other areas that makes these particular issues stand out all the more (particularly those that seem like a regression in the M series). In many ways the M3 is great step forward for the M line. The ergonomics are significantly improved, the already excellent sensor performance is vastly improved, and the AF performance is more robust. The potential for greatness is there, but some of these issues seem unnecessary at this stage. In many ways I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the camera thus far, and here’s why.
Now for Some Good News
There a lot of positives to mention as well.
Vastly improved ergonomics. These photos show you a physical comparison of the original M and the M3 bodies. The original M, while robustly made, had several ergonomic flaws. The first was an almost complete lack of a grip. There was a raised section the front of the camera that gave your fingers a little leverage, but it in no way felt like a mini-DSLR. The M3 adds a compact and yet fully formed grip that is nicely contoured and gives your hand a much more natural/complete purchase. This also allows for a more natural interaction with the shutter release button. It has one of the best physical designs of the small, mirrorless cameras. The M3 is a joy to carry and use as a result, and it is one of the few areas where it really shines in comparison to its mirrorless competition. The M also lacked any kind of dial around the shutter release button (at least in a traditional sense). There was a bit of dial, but that was to choose between the three camera modes (Auto, M/AV/TV, or Video). As a result it was not unusual to inadvertently switch to the wrong mode. The M3 not only puts the shutter release button in a better/more natural position, but also gives you a fully functional dial that allows to change shutter speed in Manual mode or Aperture in AV mode. It also adds a fully functional dial for different camera modes (most of which had to be previously accessed through the menus) and also a second dial (THANK YOU!) for dialing in exposure value changes in up to 3 stops in either direction (+/-). It is fantastic to be able to quickly use that dial on the run to influence exposure in the way that you want. The camera also adds two buttons to the back of the camera (exposure lock and zoom/focus point selection). These buttons can be programmed to other functions as well. The original M had no built-in flash, but relied on the Speedlite 90EX that was sometimes sold in kit with the camera. If your kit did not come with that flash, you were out of luck. The M3 manages to fit in a very small built-in flash, but it has a rather puny guide number of 5 (Meters coverage at ISO 100). The 90EX isn’t a ton better, but it has a guide number of 9. My flash head units of the choice (Metz 64 AF-1) have a guide number of 64, by comparison, but of course they are also bigger than the M3! Still, something is better than nothing here, and the M3 retains a fully functional hotshoe as well that is compatible with all portable flash units in the appropriate mount. Just be aware if you are using a large lens the onboard flash may cast some shadow despite popping up quite high. One nice aspect of the flash's design is that you can use a finger to angle it upward to “bounce” the flash at capture, which can eliminate some of the shadows created by a larger lens and give a more pleasing end result. I personally prefer to rely on the improved ISO performance on the sensor most of the time rather than attempting to use the flash, but I’m happy that it’s there. Tilting LCD TouchScreen
One of the biggest ergonomic improvements to the already excellent touch screen on the EOS M is the inclusion of a tilting LCD. The LCD screen will tilt 180 degrees up and 45 degrees down. The only thing better would be in the inclusion of a fully articulating screen like the one in the EOS 70D and some of the recent Rebels. Have a tilting screen makes such a huge difference when you are shooting at unconventional angles (high or low) or when you are looking down and trying to stabilize the body on a platform of some kind (like when shooting video). I’ve already use it in so many different ways when either shooting events or just in the field. It is incredibly useful.
The primary problem with tilting as opposed to articulating is that it is really only useful when shooting in landscape/horizontal mode. If you are shooting vertically/portrait orientation the tilting screen doesn’t really do you much good. I’m rather partial to composing vertically myself, so I really miss that functionality. Still, the inclusion of the tilting LCD was on the primary selling features for me.
Canon does touchscreens really, really well, and the M3 is no exception. The combination of a great touchscreen and improved physical controls make this camera's ergonomics very, very nice.
Improved AF performance (with major caveats)
The original M was famous (infamous?) for its slow autofocus performance upon its introduction. Canon was later able to unlock MUCH better AF performance with a firmware update down the road. The M3 employs Canon’s Hybrid CMOS AF III system which uses a combination of contrast-based and phase-detect technologies and embeds 49 points across most of the sensor's area (about 80% vertical and 70% horizontal coverage). Canon claims that it focuses up to 6.1x faster than the original M, and perhaps that is true of before the firmware update to the original M, but frankly the camera only feels marginally faster to me at best. The improvement is most obvious in single shot AF mode. It is also only a little better at AF Servo tracking but still doesn’t continually focus when shooting burst mode. As a result the camera is still essentially useless for tracking sports action. You can see in this brief sequence with AF Servo and Continual AF enabled that the camera didn't focus beyond the first frame. The rest of the frames in the burst are still focused on the original point. This has been my experience with all similar scenarios.
Canon is touting the increased speed, but I find the bigger upgrade to be in the focus accuracy department. It may only be slightly faster acquiring focus, but it definitely focuses with more accuracy and consistency. The only time I encounter hunting is when using either an adapted lens (via the EF adapter) or occasionally with the 55-200 STM telephoto, which sometimes hunts back and forth for a split second.
Performance with adapted lenses via the Canon EF adapter is not really any better in my experience (in fact, it is worse). You will definitely want to turn off Continuous AF if using non-STM lenses, as the noise and continual hunting will drive you crazy! The single best lens that I’ve used to adapt to the M is the 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens, which seems almost like a natural part of the system in both size and operation. Here's a shot with the “shorty forty”:
The new 50mm f/1.8 STM is another good fit. Image quality with adapted lenses is great, and I'm glad to have the option, but in many ways the current EF Adapter works worse on the M3 than it did on the M1.
Here's one with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8:
I was initially disappointed when I tried the EF-S 55-250 IS STM lens. I thought that I could use it on both systems (Canon 70D + M3), but the AF performance was so painfully glacial that I decided against it and bought the EF-M 55-200. I put the word out about this here on CanonRumors to see what other photographers were encountering. Another user let me know that there was a firmware update via Canon for the EOS M3 specifically for helping focus speed with the EF-S 55-250 STM. I downloaded it, but didn’t notice any measurable improvement. I shared this. He pointed out that there was a second firmware update for the lens itself specifically for the M3/lens combination. I downloaded and installed it, and voila, suddenly the lens focuses almost as quickly and confidently as the native EF-M 55-200 STM lens. It isn't as fast as with the 70D (unsurprising), but the difference isn't much. The lens focuses very fluidly for video as well. Other than the notable size difference, the operational difference between the two lenses is now minimal. It is now a viable crossover lens, although it is quite front heavy on the M3.
Still, the fact that it took a two step process even with an STM lens (the focus motor that works best with EOS M3), suggests to me that either Canon has either outpaced itself with the AF system on this body or deviated from the norm. There is clearly a very different process at work with the AF system when compared with the former M body, and I suspect that such tweaks could probably help a number of other lenses…but will they get them? Using other lenses in my kit (most of which are not STM) also worked better on the original M via the adapter. This makes me curious – is this a matter of the existing EF adapter being better tuned to the focus system of the original M, or is this something unique to my camera body/adapter combination? This patent makes me think that it more likely the nature of the adapter and that Canon probably needs to release an adapter more attuned to the focus system of the M3.
My own experience makes me conclude that Canon has perhaps oversold the AF performance improvement. It is better, yes, but I personally feel that it is incremental progress when radically better AF performance was needed to match what the leaders in the field are offering. The majority of current mirrorless cameras all focus more quickly than the EOS M3 and add a faster frame rate to boot.
The Manual Focus front is surprisingly better. Finally Canon has made some concessions towards the fact that some lenses are manual focus only and that some situations need manual focus. The EOS M3 allows you the option of enabling focus peaking (with a choice of three colors) when manually focusing (this can be programmed to one of the back buttons). The optional Canon EV-F DC-1 also helps (more on that in a moment), as does the ability to magnify any point on the LCD screen 5x or 10x. The latter feature was available before, but the implementation is more natural/usable on the M3. The EV-F makes a huge difference when manually focusing, as it shows the true depth of field and allows you to more easily achieve visual focus. The addition of focus peaking (I've assigned it to the video record button in stills shooting for easy on/off toggle) combined with the EV-F (and the potential to magnify the image in the EV-F) makes pinpoint focus pretty easy and opens up a lot of possibilities. I'm enjoying shooting some of my vintage glass on the EOS M3 (far more than the original M). The Rokinon 12mm f/2 continues to be a personal favorite on the M3 system.
One final nice addition when it comes to manual focus is the inclusion of a dedicated MF button (press the rear dial to the left). The EF-M STM lenses don't have any switches on them, and this allows you to quickly turn on manual focus if desired. STM lenses are still far from my favorite lenses to manually focus because of the almost total lack of tactile feedback, but this does work better than using manual override.
Frankly I am more impressed with the upgrades to the MF functionality to the EOS M3 than I am to the AF functionality. Both improvements are appreciated, but one feels more substantial than the other. Then again, Canon was able to vastly improve the first M's AF through firmware update; maybe lightning can strike twice here.
The M3 jumps into the modern era by the inclusion of both Wi-Fi and NFC (Near-Field Communication). I’ve previously written about the pros/cons of Canon’s Wi-Fi system on the Canon 6D (the implementation is similar here). One area that I find useful is that this is one of the most convenient ways to shoot long exposures with the M3 (access BULB mode by putting the camera into Manual mode then turning the dial past the longest native exposure time of 30 seconds.) Using the remote app you can simply hold the button down on your phone while the timer ticks off on your screen (or for a better option read on). There is no place on the M series to attach a remote shutter release, although you can also use one of the RC wireless remotes to achieve the same effect. Yes, you can hold down the actual shutter release button on the camera, but this is not recommended as you will invariably introduce camera shake.
I have an iPhone, so I can’t make use of the NFC technology that makes for a much easier “handshake” between the two devices (just tap the two NFC devices together to pair them). The Wi-Fi connectivity has not really progressed since the 6D was released, unfortunately. Canon has a long way to go in this area. The good news is that I've recently discovered a third party app called Cascable that dramatically improves the wireless functionally of all Canon cameras equipped with wi-fi. It enables you to set up long exposures (and even includes a calculator for the correct exposure time), allows you to program an intervalometer (something most Canon cameras have lacked), and even allows you to wirelessly transfer RAW images. It includes Apple Watch support (it is only available for iOS right now), but is well worth a look and makes the Canon app look old and dated (because it IS!)
Improved Image Quality
The strength of the M system has always been in its sensor. I have been impressed time and again at the fantastic images a tiny camera like this can make. The M3 kicks it up even further, and moves from the 18mp in the original M to a new 24.2 sensor along with the newest DIGIC 6 processor. The image quality from the M3 rocks, frankly. It’s when you review your images that your appreciation for this camera jumps up. It definitely outperforms the sensor on my 70D. For the first time (ever) I don’t see a huge drop-off in quality when I compare images from my full frame bodies to this crop sensor (APS-C) body. Yes, full frame is still better, but the differences are more subtle now.
Less noise, better high ISO performance, and more detail/resolution are all apparent when using this body. I notice that I have more latitude when I go to process and have to push things a little bit. Take this example – I was able to push shadows and highlights in Lightroom without introducing noise and banding:
If you prefer JPEG shooting, the M3 produces some really stunning JPEGs. It has always felt very empowering to have such strong imaging potential in such a small package, and the M3 only increases that feeling. I can put together a 3 or 4 lens kit in a tiny bag that I won't even notice the weight of and yet produce professional grade images. My own personal EF-M kit covers from 12mm to 200mm and weighs next to nothing.
I directly compared the M Classic and M3 in higher ISO performance. Both sensors produce more grain/noise than what my full frame bodies do, but when the ISO starts to jack up (starting at ISO 1600) there is a noticeable difference in the overall look of the images. The M Classic images quickly develop the typical high ISO look, losing contrast and having some color banding in the shadows. I didn't see the color banding on the M3 at any setting save its extended range of 25,600 – even the native maximum setting of 12,800 avoided color banding and retained a nice dynamic range with good highlights and dark shadows – the images overall look good and contrasty, just noisy. The coarseness of the grain is noticeably heavier than that of the 6D at equivalent apertures, though the M3 actually has an arguably richer looking result when viewed as a whole. I would categorize its results as actually very good here – here is a sample at ISO 12,800:
I walked extensively with the M3 in New York City in August, and got a number of awesome images while scarcely noticing the weight of the camera. It was quite a difference from the days on the trip that I carried a full frame DSLR with a lens or two!
It is the image quality that tips the balance in favor of the M3 for me. I do get frustrated by some of its shortcomings because it really feels like most of them could have/should have been easily addressed. The camera at times feels like a BETA release. I'm never going to use it for action photography, and I don't have to rely on it for my sole camera system, so I'm more easily able to overlook some of the shortcomings and just let the camera play to its strengths. I encourage you to check out the Image Gallery to see the camera in action with a variety of lenses.
Improved Battery Life
Battery life is not a natural strength for mirrorless bodies. Their small nature often means comparatively small battery packs, and the original EOS M seemed to be always burning through its battery. The larger LP-E6 battery pack that most of my DSLRs take often lasts for 1100-1200 shots. If you start the day with a freshly charged battery pack you simply aren't going to have to worry about battery life. The EOS M was a different story. Its battery was rated at 230 shots, and you were lucky to get that. You simply had to plan on getting multiple battery packs or staying close to your charger.
On paper the M3 doesn't have a big advantage. It's LP-E17 battery pack is only “rated” for 250 shots, but real life shooting for me (and everyone else that I've dialogued with) show real life battery performance is MUCH better. It's not unusual to not just get double that, but triple that. One primary difference is that the means that the rating is produced involves using the flash at least 50% of the time. The M Classic did not have a built in flash, so its rating did not include that impact on the battery life. I personally almost never use the M3's flash and have set it to go to “sleep” faster (meaning the LCD screen turns off more quickly). As I result I will often get 700-800 shots from a single charge, making the battery life in my style of shooting not far off of my DSLRs. I've never had the battery go dead in a day of use on me, so it means that even when traveling all I need to do is remember to charge the battery every day or two and I'm golden. There was no “magic bullet” with the M Classic – battery life was poor no matter what, so this is actually a significant area of improvement on the M3. Some have reported getting nearly 1000 shots out of a charge in ideal circumstances.
Somewhat Improved Burst/Buffer
The overall speed isn't really higher with the M3. It is rated for 4.2 FPS, which is about par with the M Classic. The file sizes are of course 25% larger, which accounts for part of the reason why the burst rate isn't further improved. Nor is the buffer with those big RAW files improved. What has improved, however, is the burst rate with JPEG files. Before the buffer would fill after 17 JPEGs, but now you can essentially shoot until the battery is dead, though it's hard to imagine a scenario where you would actually be testing this limit.
In short this is a marginal improvement, at best, and the competition has gotten much, much better during this same period. Canon has definitely fallen behind here.
Screen Refresh and overall Speed
One irritating aspect of the original M was how it would take for the camera to be ready to shoot again after capture. The screen would go blank for a few seconds before it would refresh and be ready to compose again. The M3 has completely eliminated that, and the camera is ready again to shoot nearly instantly after capture. The camera feels more responsive overall.
Another area where Canon is falling behind here is in the video capture. There are some pluses. The built in stereo microphones are notably improved, and the overall tracking is superior and smoother when compared to the M. If you just need a quick camcorder replacement, it is is just fine. Video quality is quite good, and I periodically use the camera to shoot footage for my YouTube channel. It does have a jack for an external microphone and standard mini-HDMI output, but it doesn't have a headphone jack or clean HDMI out.
But the camera is lacking when it comes to video modes. Forget 4K – that's not even on the radar. In fact, the slow motion spec is a somewhat apathetic 720P/60 FPS. Basically all of the competitors are offering a 60FPS/1080P standard, so the M3 is really lagging in this regard.
None of this is to say that the M3s video is bad (it isn't), but it is to say that this is one more area where Canon is lagging behind its mirrorless competitors. People expect more in 2015.
The big new player for the M3 is the Canon EV-F DC-1 EV-F viewfinder. It's actually a very clever and useful device, sensing when your eye comes near and automatically switching between the EV-F and the LCD screen. It can be tilted up to give you more flexibility in how you use it. The screen resolution is pretty decent, although it does lag a bit when you are rapidly moving the camera. But many people are going to mostly notice two things:
- It isn't built into the camera, but instead mounts on the hotshoe. It adds a fair bit of size (height) to the camera, and as a result the M3 may not fit in your typical bag of choice with the EV-F mounted.
- It is a separate expense. You can purchase it in a kit with the M3 like I did, but if you buy it separately, it is a whopping $229. You can live without it, obviously, but many of the M3's rivals come with a built in EV-F.
Once the elephant in the room has been cleared, here are my thoughts on the EV-F. I like having it, obviously, but there are pros and cons to it being a separate item. It's nice that the M3 can stay more compact by not having it built in, and perhaps nice that you don't have to pay for it if you aren't going to use it. There are also some serious downsides, though. First of all, there have already been a number of times that I've thought of the EV-F while in the field and remembered it was sitting in my photography cabinet at home. It doesn't do you any good if you don't have it with you. You can obviously forget using a flash unit and the EV-F simultaneously, too, as the DC-1 mounts on the camera's hotshoe. Other manufacturers have figured out a way to incorporate the EV-F without blowing up the size too much, so surely Canon can do the same. One plus is that is the DC-1 will work with several other bodies (some of the Powershot G series cameras), so you may get additional value there.
Do you need the EV-F? It depends on your shooting style and what lenses you are using. The LCD on the M3 is very good. It rarely gets washed out in bright sun, and for general purpose shooting it works very well, particularly because you can tilt it into a useful position. But I discovered when doing the Tamron 18-200 VC review on the EOS M Classic that I didn't particularly enjoy the experience of shooting telephoto focal lengths with the LCD. The slight refresh lag and inability to completely isolate what's on the screen with your eye made trying to track anything an exercise in frustration. The EV-F certainly helps with this, and I really like it mounted when I have the 55-200 STM mounted.
It is also very beneficial when shooting manual focus. The EV-F shows true depth of field (like the EG-S focus screen I have in one of my EOS 6D bodies), and the ability to zoom in the EV-F (5x or 10x) plus the addition of Focus Peaking makes getting accurate focus with manual focus lenses quite easy.
If you are mostly going to just use the 11-22mm, 18-55mm, or the 22mm lenses, you may not really need the EV-F at all.
The Canon EOS M3 remains a bit of a paradox. In many ways it is a far superior camera to where Canon began with the M series, and in many aspects it addresses the concerns that I and other photographers had with the M Classic. But then there are areas where it takes some puzzling steps back. In some ways it feels like a more unfinished camera then the original M despite brilliant strides forwards in some areas.
There have always been two distinct advantages for the M series when compared to many other mirrorless cameras: 1) Fabulous image quality and 2) the ability to use more than 70 EF lenses via adapter. Canon has advanced the former advantage (though others have made big strides as well!) but seems to have watered down the latter, at least with the current adapter. Much like the first M, however, the M3 ends up being more than the sum of its parts. It has a really excellent build, ergonomics, and logical design. I really, really like the camera despite its flaws, and recently I went trail running with the M3 and four(!) lenses without hardly noticing the weight at all. Being able to carry such a small camera without feeling like you are compromising your ability to get stunning images remains a very heady experience. At the very least, however, the release of M3 is encouraging to Canon shooters because it shows that Canon is still invested in mirrorless.