# Review: Canon EOS M3



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 16, 2015)

```
<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 (Apr 16, 2015)

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


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 16, 2015)

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 (Apr 16, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <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 (Apr 16, 2015)

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 (Apr 16, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <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>
> ...




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


----------



## gimmick.austin (Apr 16, 2015)

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 (Apr 16, 2015)

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 (Apr 16, 2015)

TeT said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



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 (Apr 16, 2015)

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 (Apr 16, 2015)

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 (Apr 16, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ....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 (Apr 16, 2015)

SUNDOG04 said:


> 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 (Apr 16, 2015)

dak723 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > ....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.
> ...


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 (Apr 16, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> 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 (Apr 16, 2015)

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 (Apr 16, 2015)

gimmick.austin said:


> 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 (Apr 17, 2015)

Tugela said:


> gimmick.austin said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Apr 17, 2015)

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 (Apr 17, 2015)

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


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 17, 2015)

Tugela said:


> gimmick.austin said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Apr 17, 2015)

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 (Apr 17, 2015)

Tugela said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Statements like this always make me laugh: _"Mirrorless cameras are the future of photography"_
> ...



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 (Apr 17, 2015)

"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.



Tugela said:


> 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 (Apr 17, 2015)

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


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 17, 2015)

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 (Apr 17, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> ... 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 (Apr 17, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> 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 (Apr 17, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> 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 (Apr 17, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> 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 (Apr 17, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> 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 (Apr 17, 2015)

SoullessPolack said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Apr 17, 2015)

#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 (Apr 17, 2015)

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 (Apr 17, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> 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 (Apr 17, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



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 (Apr 17, 2015)

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 (Apr 17, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> SoullessPolack said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



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 (Apr 17, 2015)

Tugela said:


> 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 (Apr 17, 2015)

Tugela said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > SoullessPolack said:
> ...



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.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 17, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <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>
> ...



At what point is someone invested or easily disinterested in their craft? A little drizzle or cumbersome gear puts someone off taking photos in the best light...so how does some one expect to push their art and craft with THAT kind of attitude. Maybe they should stick to selfies on their iphones?

I chose a 5DIII because it's the best camera for what I want to do...expand and broaden my photographic skills and abilities. I chose a 400mm f2.8 LIS because it's the best and most versatile of the big while telephoto lenses. If photographic equipment is too inconvenient...then I suggest staying at home and watching TV as a better hobby.


----------



## JoFT (Apr 17, 2015)

Mirrorless is the future: Everybody who thinks he can lough should wait: This sentence is going to become true. I am 200% convinced.

The reason is pretty simple: costs and performance: 


Whenever a mirror has to move: this costs time and shakes the camera. no mirror, no shake
A mirror is a mechanical device which costs money
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]It is not only the size of the body which will get reduced but the lenses itself as well. The smaller distance between sensor and bayonet flange allows the lens designers to perform totally new lens designs which huge advantages.[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Whoever does not believe: I use both: EOS 5D3 and 7D2 as well as µ43. All with pretty good lenses. The µ43 prime lenses are mind-blowing good!!! and very compact. [/font]

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The situation that there is no high end glas like the ZEISS OTUS lens comparable designed for mirrorless full frame cameras has only one reason: there is no Canon or Nikon FF mirrorless camera there... This will come as soon as bot will join the market with mirrorless full frames...[/font]


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 17, 2015)

JoFT said:


> Mirrorless is the future: Everybody who thinks he can lough should wait: This sentence is going to become true. I am 200% convinced.


Then you might want to take some math classes.


> The reason is pretty simple: costs and performance:
> 
> 
> Whenever a mirror has to move: this costs time and shakes the camera. no mirror, no shake
> A mirror is a mechanical device which costs money



And a microdisplay is an electronic device which is free?

In reality, good microdisplays cost *more* than mirrors and prisms.



> [font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]It is not only the size of the body which will get reduced but the lenses itself as well. The smaller distance between sensor and bayonet flange allows the lens designers to perform totally new lens designs which huge advantages.[/font]



Only for wide-angle lenses, which tend to be the smallest lenses in the kit anyway.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 17, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> 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.



Fashion? You didn't really mean that did you?



> 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.



How's the stabilization and autofocus performance on those two?

It's trivially true that adding stabilization and AF will increase the size of a lens. It's equally trivial that a zoom lens is larger than a prime of comparable focal length and speed. For most of us, all three are more than worthy of the size increase. I won't buy a prime over a zoom unless it offers a focal length I can't get in a zoom (i.e. my 15mm f/2.8 fisheye and my 2000mm f/7), or a speed I can't get in a zoom (i.e. my 35/1.4 and 85/1.8 ). I value stabilization and AF performance a lot because most of what I shoot is not compatible with a tripod or with manual focus.

It's also trivially true that virtually all Canon telephoto lenses are true telephoto lenses.

The 85/1.8 is 71.5mm long
The 100/2 is 73.5mm long
The 135/2L is 112mm long
The 200/2.8 is 135.2mm long
The 300/2.8 is 248mm long
The 400/5.6 is 256.5mm long
The 400/2.8 is 343mm long
The 600/4 is 448mm long
The 800/5.6 is 461mm long

Even the zooms:
The 70-200/2.8 is 199mm long
The 70-300L is 143mm long
The 100-400 is 193mm long
The 200-400 is 366mm long

So quit making stuff up like, "nowadays many 'telephoto' lenses are not telephoto at all."



> The large size today is the fashion, nothing more.



You really did mean "fashion", didn't you! Wow. I care less about "fashion" than anyone I've ever met, and probably less than anyone you've ever met as well. I choose nothing based on how it looks. Nothing. I don't care that I've basically worn the same clothes for the last 35 years, or that my chosen camera bag makes me look like I'm a pregnant middle-aged man. I didn't choose my 2004 Prius because it was the best looking car on the lot, and I don't choose to use SLRs for their "fashion" either.

I choose them for the same reasons I choose the gloves I wear - they fit my hands and serve a particular purpose or set of purposes.


----------



## Zv (Apr 17, 2015)

What makes you a worse photographer is making excuses about gear and not going out and shooting. Big or small doesn't matter. There are cameras of all sizes to accommodate everyone's needs. 

I've never heard anyone say thier 5D MkIII is holding them back, because of it's size. It's not a wardrobe or a fridge. Put it in a bag and be done with it. You need a bag for a mirroless camera too, they don't just float in the air beside you! 

Edit - or do they?


----------



## grainier (Apr 17, 2015)

JoFT said:


> [font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]It is not only the size of the body which will get reduced but the lenses itself as well. The smaller distance between sensor and bayonet flange allows the lens designers to perform totally new lens designs which huge advantages.[/font]



It not the bayonet flange, it's vastly reduced image circle. Consider Sony full frame E-mount lenses that directly match Canon - 70-200/4 OSS is bigger and heavier than 70-200/4 L IS. Vario-Tessar 16-35 is just a bit smaller and lighter than 16-35/4L, Vario-Tessar 24-70/4 _is_ quite a bit smaller than matching Canon, but 24-70/4 L has additional functionality.


----------



## fragilesi (Apr 17, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> You really did mean "fashion", didn't you! Wow. I care less about "fashion" than anyone I've ever met, and probably less than anyone you've ever met as well. I choose nothing based on how it looks. Nothing. I don't care that I've basically worn the same clothes for the last 35 years, or that my chosen camera bag makes me look like I'm a pregnant middle-aged man. I didn't choose my 2004 Prius because it was the best looking car on the lot, and I don't choose to use SLRs for their "fashion" either.
> 
> I choose them for the same reasons I choose the gloves I wear - they fit my hands and serve a particular purpose or set of purposes.



You do realise that if anyone from Apple reads this there will likely be a trained assassin dispatched to deal with you within a day  Choosing things because they serve a purpose, wherever did you come up with such strange notions????


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 17, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > You really did mean "fashion", didn't you! Wow. I care less about "fashion" than anyone I've ever met, and probably less than anyone you've ever met as well. I choose nothing based on how it looks. Nothing. I don't care that I've basically worn the same clothes for the last 35 years, or that my chosen camera bag makes me look like I'm a pregnant middle-aged man. I didn't choose my 2004 Prius because it was the best looking car on the lot, and I don't choose to use SLRs for their "fashion" either.
> ...



Yeah...Applebots are strange. I've never owned one of their products, and I likely never will. Pretty much everything they stand for is something I oppose.


----------



## fragilesi (Apr 17, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Well I'll confess I bought an iPhone (3GS), really liked it, still use it now. But having now played with an Android phone I'll soon be getting rid of even that. To be fair what they do, they do well, but I shake my head in wonder at the amount of products Apple manage to sell to some of my colleagues and how convinced said colleagues are the benefits of the newer models. Me, I'll be getting a cheap Moto G and save enough for a decent lens .


----------



## Adelino (Apr 17, 2015)

From reading the comments I have decided what is needed is a camera that folds to pocket size but unfolds to the size of a 5d with grip, has the heft and build quality of the 7dII but has anti gravity boosters so that it is light as an iphone and the 16-400 f2.0 lens collapses like one of those pop up camping cups. Until that happens I am sure engineers will be working to make things lighter, faster, stronger, and more compact. I do see mirrors going away (or at least becoming more of a niche market, maybe some day they will be leading the retro camera designs) but they will probably be very prominent and relevant for at least a decade.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 17, 2015)

Adelino said:


> I do see mirrors going away (or at least becoming more of a niche market, maybe some day they will be leading the retro camera designs) but they will probably be very prominent and relevant for at least a decade.



SLRs have *always* been a niche product, even in the film days. Compacts with external non-TTL optical finders and other sorts of lower-end cameras were always far more popular than SLRs.


----------



## epocalibera (Apr 17, 2015)

*Re: Review: Canon EOS M3 - Low Light High ISO Movie Samples *

I have just uploaded a compilation of movie samples shot in low light - high ISO, with the EOS M3 in Athens, Greece. ISO value of every movie sample is shown at the right-bottom side of the video. Chipped and unchipped legacy lenses were used for shooting the samples of this movie, which are:
1. Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 non-Ai (adapter used).
2. Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 (23A).
3. Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX II for Nikon (adapter used).
4. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF for Canon.
Movie samples were shot from April 11 until April 15 2015 in the center of the Greek capital.
Hope it helps some people.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_MiVFmAg_o


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 17, 2015)

*Re: Review: Canon EOS M3 - Low Light High ISO Movie Samples *



epocalibera said:


> I have just uploaded a compilation of movie samples shot in low light - high ISO, with the EOS M3 in Athens, Greece. ISO value of every movie sample is shown at the right-bottom side of the video. Chipped and unchipped legacy lenses were used for shooting the samples of this movie, which are:
> 1. Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 non-Ai (adapter used).
> 2. Mir 24N 35mm f2 (adapter used).
> 3. Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX II for Nikon (adapter used).
> ...


Thank you for contributing to this discussion.
And welcome to Canonrumors.


----------



## jonathan7007 (Apr 17, 2015)

I will read the thread because there is usually a good discussion. However here I just jump in to write that I couldn't wait for Canon to make something small and good for street, people work, events with less structured expectations.... I bought a Fuji x100T in November the minute they started shipping and just took delivery of a Fuji X-E2 so I could add access to a couple more focal lengths of the excellent (and small) Fujinon lenses. (a little 18mm f2 and the wonderful so far 35mm f1.4 native, not equivalent...)

Back in the day I did a lot of B&W personal work on a Leica M2. This form factor and the x100T optical viewfinder seem like coming home to that. My wife already has less negative to say when we head out the door and I have the x100T. Before I might grab a 5DMk3 and a 24 or my Sigma 35 Art and the reaction was, "You're going to take THAT?" She was channeling some people's reaction to a giant piece of gear and big "eye" of glass. It helps for her (and me) that the x100T is silent in a room full of people.

The Fujis look more like a point-and-shoots and they keep people way more relaxed.

Canons still required for my pro work, tilt-and-shift lenses, bigger files for print, etc. But I grin from ear to ear sometimes when working with the Fujis. I take a camera with me every day. This is fun! ..and the files are still exciting to work with.

I am one "vote" in a big change and yes, I read the sales figure charts. I am glad I am not a camera maker employees now (was, once, and in sales!)


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 17, 2015)

jonathan7007 said:


> Before I might grab a 5DMk3 and a 24 or my Sigma 35 Art and the reaction was, "You're going to take THAT?"



That would be grounds for divorce for me.


----------



## epocalibera (Apr 17, 2015)

*Re: Review: Canon EOS M3 - Low Light High ISO Movie Samples *



ajfotofilmagem said:


> epocalibera said:
> 
> 
> > I have just uploaded a compilation of movie samples shot in low light - high ISO, with the EOS M3 in Athens, Greece. ISO value of every movie sample is shown at the right-bottom side of the video. Chipped and unchipped legacy lenses were used for shooting the samples of this movie, which are:
> ...



Thank you ajfotofilmagem, until today i was only a reader, so now I have joined.

I have also corrected my previous message because finally the movie clips shot with the "Mir 24N 35mm f2" lens were not included in this video.
So I deleted this lens from my message and added the lens that I had forgotten before: 
Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 (23A)
With this lens I have shot the initial clips of my video and it is important to note.


----------



## dcm (Apr 18, 2015)

M3+EVF arrived today. Used my M quite a bit, 7K+ images, and have the full lens kit so I'm pretty familiar and comfortable with it. My expectation was an M+some improvements so I focused on a few things were I hoped it would be better. Initial impressions of the M3 are favorable, but wasn't able to do much due to the weather - mostly testing ergonomics and my intended use cases. It does solve several of my gripes about the original M. Still a lot of testing do but no disappointments so far. 

Not looking at images yet due to poor lighting. LR, DxO, and Photos don't have support for the CR2s. Hope it comes with the T6s/T6i update that will also be required. Guess its back to Canon software for now.

Slightly bulkier than the M, but in a good way. The new grip provides a much better handhold. I am more comfortable with an EF lens attached. And it seems nicer when hold the camera with EF-M lenses mounted.

AF seems better than the M although I didn't do any side by side comparisons. It focused my EF-M and several EF lenses quickly with no hunting (unless I was inside MFD . Still have a lot more testing to do here but nothing negative to report so far. 

Focus peaking (FP) is a nice addition, particularly for manual glass like my old FD lenses. I tried the FDn 50/1.8 with the Fotasy FD adapter and it worked great. Takes me back to my film days. I also tried it with EF 85 f/1.8 in MF mode and FP worked well, just a bit more challenging with a lens designed for AF. The Tamron 150-600 doesn't seem to register as an AF lens (expected) so I used FP with it as well. Will have to send the Tamron in for an update when they have an AF fix. 

I like the EVF, particularly for longer focal lengths. Tested with EF-M 55-200, EF 85 f/1.8, EF 100-400 II (w Ext 2.0 III), and Tamron 150-600. Yep, I was handholding the M3+EVF+Adapter+Ext2.0+100-400II and it was usable at an effective 1280mm. Can't wait for a clear night to shoot the moon. Much better than holding at arm's length to compose and you can zoom the EVF to 5x or 10x. FP is still pretty good at 5X, but get's faint at 10x. EVF might not be quite as good as my 6D OVF but better than any P&S OVF that I remember. I think it will be good enough for me. I'd have no hesitation handholding a long lens on the M3 with the EVF. And it tilts, no angle finder needed!

The wheel around the shutter button is a nice addition. Great for adjustments when using the EVF. You don't have to take the camera away from your face to make a change. Still deciding how to setup the buttons, but there are plenty of choices for such a small camera.

Don't think I'll ever use the tilt screen for selfies, but it was nice to hold the camera waist level like an old Yashica TLR I used many moons ago. I can see this will be real useful for shooting the grandkid without having to squat or kneel to shoot at her level. I can see this as also being helpful when mounted on a tripod or gimbal. Haven't given the WiFi tethering a shot yet. 

So far it appears to be a solid improvement over the original M.


----------



## casperl (Apr 18, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> 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.



That statement is pretty much a personal opinion. You don't need to state "I personally think" explicitly to make it one.


----------



## gregory4000 (Apr 18, 2015)

I like mirrors. I also like DSLR. Each have their place. But the EVF will offer abilities that an optical viewfinder will soon fall short on. Maybe not now, but in the near future. It will see better in the dark, much better focus assist, true color accuracy, contrast. Again, maybe not now, but in the near future. Don't forget true silent shutter, 20, 30, 60 stills a second, No shutter ware. 
DSLR are great. Just like driving a muscle car. But technology always wins. Just need a little vision.


----------



## gregory4000 (Apr 18, 2015)

I like mirrorless. I also like DSLR. Each have their place. But the EVF will offer abilities that an optical viewfinder will soon fall short on. Maybe not now, but in the near future. It will see better in the dark, much better focus assist, true color accuracy, contrast. Again, maybe not now, but in the near future. Don't forget true silent shutter, 20, 30, 60 stills a second, No shutter ware. 
DSLR are great. Just like driving a muscle car. But technology always wins. Just need a little vision.
Modify message

Correction-on above post. Mirrorless


----------



## sunnyVan (Apr 18, 2015)

dcm said:


> M3+EVF arrived today. Used my M quite a bit, 7K+ images, and have the full lens kit so I'm pretty familiar and comfortable with it. My expectation was an M+some improvements so I focused on a few things were I hoped it would be better. Initial impressions of the M3 are favorable, but wasn't able to do much due to the weather - mostly testing ergonomics and my intended use cases. It does solve several of my gripes about the original M. Still a lot of testing do but no disappointments so far.
> 
> Not looking at images yet due to poor lighting. LR, DxO, and Photos don't have support for the CR2s. Hope it comes with the T6s/T6i update that will also be required. Guess its back to Canon software for now.
> 
> ...



It's very nice to have a post that actually comments on m3 instead of just guessing the future of mirrorless camera. 

May I ask you how you like your 55-200? I can't find decent review anywhere. I'm interested in this lens now because of the evf. With the M holding a tele at arm's lens didn't make sense. I'm curious how 55-200 performs against 70-300L.


----------



## dcm (Apr 18, 2015)

sunnyVan said:


> dcm said:
> 
> 
> > M3+EVF arrived today.
> ...



Thanks. I've shared my personal thoughts about using the M and will do so with the M3 as I begin to use it more. Right now I'm kicking the tires. I don't write reviews - might have to loan it to Dustin for that ;D

Shared my thoughts on the 55-200 in a previous thread and compared it with the other tele zooms I had (EF 70-200 f/4L IS and Tamron 150-600). For its size I think it's pretty good and is definitely my preferred carry for hiking and discrete telephoto use. I hope to revisit Long's Peak one of these days to add to the comparison with the M3 and my upgraded zooms (EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and EF 100-400L II) sometime down the road.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22925.msg444139#msg444139


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 18, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> If photographic equipment is too inconvenient...then I suggest staying at home and watching TV as a better hobby.



Love this! Enjoyed the laugh, thank you.


----------



## photo212 (Apr 18, 2015)

Old dog here. I've learned to hold a SLR with a telephoto pretty damn still. I cannot master this point and shoot/mirrorless concept held at an arm's length to see the LCD. It is why all my point-and-shoots have the tilt/swivel LCD for waist level shooting (well, and yeah, a viewfinder, too).

If someone can show me a stable shooting position with these Canon's mirrorless cameras, I might be interested in using one as a second body, just in case something goes wrong.


----------



## epocalibera (Apr 18, 2015)

*Re: Review: Canon EOS M3 - Low Light High ISO Movie Samples *



epocalibera said:


> I have just uploaded a compilation of movie samples shot in low light - high ISO, with the EOS M3 in Athens, Greece. ISO value of every movie sample is shown at the right-bottom side of the video. Chipped and unchipped legacy lenses were used for shooting the samples of this movie, which are:
> 1. Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 non-Ai (adapter used).
> 2. Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 (23A).
> 3. Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX II for Nikon (adapter used).
> ...


And here are 2 pictures of the gear used to shoot the test video:





Canon EOS M3 with the lens: Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 non-Ai 





Canon EOS M3 with the lens: Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 (23A) and the electronic viewfinder: EVF-DC1.

More pictures of this set can be found at my blog post: http://www.epocalibera.com/2015/04/canon-eos-m3-low-light-high-iso-movie.html
where you can see EOS M3 with legacy lenses.


----------



## dcm (Apr 19, 2015)

sunnyVan said:


> It's very nice to have a post that actually comments on m3 instead of just guessing the future of mirrorless camera.
> 
> May I ask you how you like your 55-200? I can't find decent review anywhere. I'm interested in this lens now because of the evf. With the M holding a tele at arm's lens didn't make sense. I'm curious how 55-200 performs against 70-300L.



Spent some time in the backyard with the M3+EVF and 55-200 today with slightly better weather (at least it wasn't raining). I'm impressed what this combo can do. EVF with telephoto makes all the difference - you can hold it like a DSLR. I haven't used the rear display yet in this configuration. Definitely part of my hiking kit in the future. Here's an image OOC. 



IMG_0258 by dvmtthws, on Flickr

Focusing process might change a bit. Only 2 AF modes - 1 point and face tracking/multi. In 1 point AF you can magnify 5x or 10x even when using the EVF to check AF or set using MF. Focus peaking even works when magnified. When AF picked the near edge of a target, I could easily adjust using MF to bring the rest of of object into focus with FP. Does not seem to magnify in multipoint AF, magnify button turns face detect on and off. But the the AF grid has many more segments so its easier to tell what is in focus. And a bump of the MF ring gives you focus peaking to check.

Seems to get 4 RAW in continuous shooting before it hesitated versus 2 on the M. Turned off RAW since I don't have anything to process it yet. Biggest surprise of the day when it clicked off 30 large/superfine jpgs (10Mb or so each) at about 4 fps before it hestitated. Then it continued to shoot at a lower frame rate, maybe 1-2 fps.

Started an album for the M3, https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157652047738955/with/17166193246/


----------



## sunnyVan (Apr 19, 2015)

dcm said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > It's very nice to have a post that actually comments on m3 instead of just guessing the future of mirrorless camera.
> ...



Seems like this 55-200 deserves some consideration. 

I noticed that now I can use back button to focus and use shutter to take a picture. Very glad for this implementation. 

I have a feeling that the battery life has improved. What's your thought? I got a spare LP-E17 anyway. But it may not be needed as I suspect one is enough for a full day of shooting for me.


----------



## dcm (Apr 19, 2015)

sunnyVan said:


> ...
> 
> Seems like this 55-200 deserves some consideration.
> 
> ...



Can't beat the size/weight of the EF-M lenses compared to the EF counterparts when I am carrying a bag or pack and going light. Today I carried M3+EVF, 55-200, 11-22, and 22 in a ThinkTank Mirrorless Mover 20 to an Earth Day event. Hardly noticed I was carrying anything. Much less conspicuous than my similar FF setup.

I use BBF on the Ms and 6D. Still getting used to the button change on the M3. 

Same battery as 750D/760D, about 15% more mAh than the LP-E12 used in the M. Over 500 photos with EVF before the battery dropped a bar. Recharge didn't take long so I think it still had plenty of juice left. Haven't tried Eco Mode yet. As long as I start the day with a fully charged battery I'll probably be okay. I always carry a spare battery and SD card just to be sure.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 19, 2015)

Thanks for the informative posts dcm! I have an M that I use as a small/light alternative to my DSLR's. I like the M1, but have been wondering how much of an upgrade the M3 is. Your posts have answered all my questions. Ill be adding an M3 at some point this year.


----------



## dcm (Apr 19, 2015)

bholliman said:


> Thanks for the informative posts dcm! I have an M that I use as a small/light alternative to my DSLR's. I like the M1, but have been wondering how much of an upgrade the M3 is. Your posts have answered all my questions. Ill be adding an M3 at some point this year.



I feel like I've only scratched the surface so far. There are many features and modes still to explore, but I like what I've seen so far. I haven't yet tried all my normal uses for the M, much less explore some new ones. While I'm at it I recently upgraded my EF zooms so I think I'll do some head to head lens comparison between EF-M glass and EF glass mounted on the M3. Think I'll start with these pairs.


----------



## sandymandy (Apr 19, 2015)

please just add a FF sensor....


----------



## bainsybike (Apr 20, 2015)

photo212 said:


> Old dog here. I've learned to hold a SLR with a telephoto pretty damn still. I cannot master this point and shoot/mirrorless concept held at an arm's length to see the LCD. It is why all my point-and-shoots have the tilt/swivel LCD for waist level shooting (well, and yeah, a viewfinder, too).
> 
> If someone can show me a stable shooting position with these Canon's mirrorless cameras, I might be interested in using one as a second body, just in case something goes wrong.



Try holding it closer to your eyes - about 10", or your visual near-point. Keep your elbows close to your sides. Held like that, it's not so different from using a viewfinder. It helps if you can find something to lean on - a tree, a lamppost, a railing - but that helps when using a viewfinder too.


----------



## dcm (Apr 21, 2015)

bainsybike said:


> photo212 said:
> 
> 
> > Old dog here. I've learned to hold a SLR with a telephoto pretty damn still. I cannot master this point and shoot/mirrorless concept held at an arm's length to see the LCD. It is why all my point-and-shoots have the tilt/swivel LCD for waist level shooting (well, and yeah, a viewfinder, too).
> ...



That's a bit harder for people like me with Presbyopia. My visual near-point is beyond arms length ;-) Progressive lenses correct it somewhat, but not quite that close. The Canon EVF with diopter adjustment works great in my case.


----------



## bainsybike (Apr 22, 2015)

dcm said:


> bainsybike said:
> 
> 
> > photo212 said:
> ...



In your case, of course, I'm happy for you to use a viewfinder.  

Actually I prefer a viewfinder myself, and before I bought the M all my cameras had one. But now that I have the M I find using the screen much less of a handicap than I expected. I think it's largely a matter of practice.


----------



## dcm (May 2, 2015)

bainsybike said:


> dcm said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I made the transition from viewfinder to screen with I moved from a G series to S series. The M was an improvement over the S series for me, even if not as pocketable.

I've been using the flip screen on the M3 at 90 degrees to shoot waste level and like this setup. Just wish I could change the BBF button to Mfn. Think I might like that with the EVF as well. Actually makes some sense to have the focus button next to the shutter button.


----------



## sunnyVan (May 3, 2015)

dcm said:


> bainsybike said:
> 
> 
> > dcm said:
> ...



You can program the exposure lock button to become focus lock button. Focus with thumb and shoot with index finger.


----------



## dcm (May 3, 2015)

sunnyVan said:


> dcm said:
> 
> 
> > bainsybike said:
> ...



That's the way I currently use it. I find the exposure lock button placement a bit awkward to hit/find sometimes, like when shooting waste level or with EVF.


----------

