Canon M3 Anybody?

<p>I've just recently begun to read up on this camera, and it appears that Canon has at long last joined the Mirrorless fray in a meaningful way. I've long been a user of Canon, so I have more than a passing interest if Canon gets serious about Mirrorless cameras. Currently I have a Sony NEX 7 that I'm happy with but that could change. The M3 seems to be a pretty decent equivalent to my NEX 7. And, owning EF lenses, I'll be able to use them with the appropriate adapter.</p>

<p>So, I'm curious -- has anyone else here decided to pick up an M3? And if you have, please, tell us what you think of it. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Canon EOS M3 does not have an electronic viewfinder. A back screen is hard to use in sunlight, and at arm's length without image stabilization, not particularly useful in low light or small apertures. I suppose a "good" photography could use a matchbox with a pinhole lens, but he'd have to choose the time and place rather carefully.</p>

I don't know anybody who shoots a Canon M. If having the best possible adapter situation for EF lenses is the priority, go

for it. If not, I don't see any reason to get one when the market includes very well developed mirrorless APSC systems

from Sony and Fuji. Canon's US web site shows four EOS-M lenses available, and three of those are slow variable

aperture zooms, and this Is 3 years after the M was introduced, so I don't really see Canon having a commitment to this

system.

<blockquote>

<p>...and it appears that Canon has at long last joined the Mirrorless fray in a meaningful way.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not...even...close.<br>

<br>

I have more then a passing interest in Canon getting serious about mirrorless. And year after year I wait in vain. So I have (more then) satisfied myself with at first a NEX 7, then a NEX 7 with Speedbooster, and now an A7. Couldnt be happier.<br>

<br>

Hopefully one day we will see a modern mirrorless, digital version of the venerable Canon A-1 complete with a new set of small Canon prime lenses. You will also have the option to buy (from Canon) a mechanical/electronic adapter for their old FD lenses that allows full functionality with all that wonderful old glass. Sounds like a pipe dream right? </p>

<p>Unfortunately that would take a certain set of brass balls that Canon seemingly at the moment does not posses. The M series, in my opinion, is little piece of snot from a once great imaging company that at one time had their finger on the pulse of photography. Today innovation is a dirty word at Canon.</p>

<p>I've got an EOS-M, basically as a kind of digital back for all my vintage lenses, including a 35mm Summcron-R I'm using as a standard. On the basis that the M3 seems to be a development of this, with better AF and the option of an electronic viewfinder, I'm quite likely to buy one. I think it's reasonable that Canon has not developed many dedicated lenses when it is so easy to use EF lenses via an adapter.</p>

<p>I have an M since beginning this year, when prices in Europe were very low. The M is better than it's reputation. Together with 2 adapters I can use my old FD lenses and the more recent EF ones. It does not replace my DSLRs, it's too small to use it with a large lens but the ergonomics are phantastic, due to the way the touch screen works. At the moment I see it more as a complement to my DSLR outfit than as a potential successor.<br>

I'm sure Canon can do better than the present EOS M series, they have all the know how, but I guess they want to sell a few DSLRs first.</p>

<p>I don't know, I had an original M with the 22mm lens - I loved it but it had some annoyances. I got along better without an O/EVF better than I thought I might, but I think I would want one if it was my main camera. Mostly what bothered me about the camera was the touch screen - if i carried the camera on a strap just it bumping against my body while walking around would change settings at random and a few times settings got changed badly enough that I had to reset the defaults, drove me absolutely nuts. I also didn't like how fast the M would go through a battery.<br>

I loved the size though and the fact I could have the camera with me almost everywhere. I think the image quality was just fine. Now that there are going to be more native lenses readily available, the rear screen is articulated, and the grip seems better I might consider this again. For me its competitors are the Sony a6000, Fuji XE-2 and possibly the XT10. </p>

<p>Canon and Nikon appear to consider mirrorless cameras unworthy of their mainframe professionals, amateurs and dilettantes. Sony and Fuji, on the other hand, intend to do everything their larger counterparts can do, and do it better.</p>

<p>There's no technical reason Canon or Nikon can't produce a camera to compete with Sony, and have a far better service organization to back it up. Perhaps they realize a professional mirrorless camera would cut into their DSLR market. That's a logical conclusion, of which Sony is taking full advantage.</p>

<p>Sony has a stated goal of becoming #2 in the high end camera business in 5 years. I think they're fibbing about settling for #2. Why be limited to a 36mm x 24 mm sensor when Sony already accounts for most of the medium format market? Imagine a medium format camera the size of a D4 (or smaller), at 1/6th the price of a Leia S. Throw in a second memory card and a larger battery, and put the competition on LinkedIn.</p>

<p>Edward, I think you are spot on in mentioning medium format in relation to the mirrorless market. But I don't believe it will be Sony that pushes the envelope there. It will be Fuji. Fuji has no vested interest in bringing a full frame system to market and put themselves in Sonys boat of competing with their already strong APSC X camera line in addition to Sonys great FF offerings. They will instead leapfrog FF and go straight for a powerful, small and relatively inexpensive medium format camera. Fuji has a lot of history with MF anyway so it would fit right into their current culture.</p>

<p>So most likely in a few years when you walk into a camera store you will see something like this...</p>

<p>Sony A7R Mk. V with 64mp BSI Organic curved sensor with pixel shift and Auto Focus for manual lenses.<br>

Fuji MX One, 80mp medium format mirrorless with a solid lineup up of sweet Fujinon primes in a package about the size of the A7.<br>

Canon 5D Mk whatever, with two new flashing lights and now in bright red!</p>

<p>I don't think curved sensors will become common. They were used in Schmidt (astronomical) cameras of the mid-20th century, but for mirrors, which have few other aberrations.</p>

<p>Spherical aberration in lenses doesn't mean the focal plane has a spherical shape. Rather that outer parts of the lens have a different focal plane that the center of the lens. Light from all parts of the lens reach all parts of the image plane, so the net result is confusion, not curvature. Field curvature is generally not spherical, and remains after most of the obvious aberrations have been removed.</p>

<p>The problem where short focus lenses are blurry in the corners is related to the thick (2 mm) cover glass on Sony sensors. The optical thickness of a flat glass element is about 50% greater than its physical thickness. As the angle of incidence increases, toward the corners, the physical and optical thickness increases with the sine of that angle.</p>

<p>Zeiss, and probably Sony, use that fixed glass in the calculations for their high-end FE lenses. The Loxia duet, Zeiss FE 35/1.4 and other dedicated lenses perform impeccably on the Sony A7, but seem to suffer in MTF tests, which occur in air. The dramatic fall off in these charts is not consistent with the results I have observed in use.</p>

<p>If Fuji makes the breakout into medium format digital, there is a 90% chance it will be with a Sony sensor. I don't think that will happen unless upper management in Sony was recruited from Kodak (or GM). Fujinon lenses, on the other hand, are among the best.</p>

I thought the problem with the Sony and wide rangefinder lenses was that the Sony uses a conventional sensor stack and

microlens array over the sensor which does not correctly handle ray coming in at a sharp angle, which is common with

ultrawide rangefinder lenses designed for film. Leica has a microlens designed specifically to compensate for this problem

with a larger bubble of glass over a thinner glass stack. The net effect of which is that the light passing through a

microlens and a color spot on the Bayer array hits the intended pixel area on a Leica, where on a Sony if it's coming in at

a sharp angle it could hit the next pixel over, causing a smear and a color shift at the edges of the frame when using

those lenses. So it's not that Sony has an unusually thick sensor stack but that theirs is a conventional one where a new

design would be needed for use with those lenses. Ultrawides designed for Sony are newer designs that don't have light

rays coming at a sharp angle.

<blockquote>

<p> For me its competitors are the Sony a6000, Fuji XE-2 and possibly the XT10.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>all of which have EVF's and more native lens options. iMO the Canon's price point is hard to justify, especially considering the recent fire sale on the original model.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fuji has no vested interest in bringing a full frame system to market and put themselves in Sonys boat of competing with their already strong APSC X camera line in addition to Sonys great FF offerings. They will instead leapfrog FF and go straight for a powerful, small and relatively inexpensive medium format camera. Fuji has a lot of history with MF anyway so it would fit right into their current culture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is an interesting point, as nikon and canon's DX (and mirrorless offerings) are competing with their FF line.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If Fuji makes the breakout into medium format digital, there is a 90% chance it will be with a Sony sensor. I don't think that will happen unless upper management in Sony was recruited from Kodak (or GM).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>another interesting point. would love to see a digital 645 with a fixed zoom lens from fuji, but i cant rule out a full-frame X100 down the line, either. developing a new lens line might put a strain on fuji's budget, so they may test the waters first.</p>

<p>Most sources agree it is the 2mm cover glass, not the microlens array at fault. It makes sense to me from an engineering standpoint, considering the effect of a glass plate near the sensor, creating a curvature of field. The film plane is optically further from the theoretical flat field the further from the center of the field. To correct this, the lens must be designed with a negative field curvature so that it focus on the sensor at all points. From a modeling point of view, the cover glass is considered part of the lens for design purposes. The physics are quite simple, even if the cure is not</p>

<p>The A7Rii displays the same smearing in the corners with Leica lenses as the A7ii. The A7Rii has a backlit array and no AA filter, and the A7ii a standard array and AA filter, but both have the same cover glass. Neither show purple discoloration, which is caused by parallax between the microlenses, bayer filter and sensor array.</p>

<p>The Summaron 35/2.8 performs much better on a Leica M-9, but not perfectly. There is still some smearing in the corners. The M-9 uses a 1 mm cover glass, which also serves as the IR filter. The M8 had a thinner cover glass, which suffered from excessive IR sensitivity. The microlens array serves to direct light rays vertically into the sensor wells, for alignment with the Bayer filter and better light capturing ability. Firmware in the M-9 compensates for edge sharpness, vignetting and residual false colors. Leica lenses are designed for film, which has nothing between the film surface and the lens. They are expected to work well on the M-9, which was designed to return the compliment. The marriage is far from perfect.</p>

<p>Not all problems arise from the sensor structure. All lenses retain some defects which increase from the center outwards. These include chromatic aberration, coma and residual field curvature. Going through old negatives with the same level of pixel-peeping on scans as I apply to digital images, I see many of the same problems, only to a lesser extent.</p>

So really, if you are going to demand edge to edge super quality images on digital you want newer glass anyway and it's

not going to come cheap. Says the guy who's up to 7 Fuji XF lenses.

<p>Legacy glass works pretty well, even SLR primes. But yes, if you want the best sharpness and integration, you have to buy dedicated glass. In Sony's case, I think there's a long term commitment. Zeiss apparently thinks so too, considering the effort they've put into collaboration with Sony plus two solo lines, Loxia and Batis.</p>

<p>The Summaron 35/2.8 is actually not that bad, and the Zeiss 35/2.8 and 28/2.8 ZM (M mount) lenses are better (and 50 years newer). The quality of the Sony sensors are so good, you tend to obsess over defects in the image. In fact the Summaron is very sharp in the center half the image at f/2.8 and in over 90% of the image at f/5.6. Considering the difficulty focusing, I hardly ever set a lens wider than f4 with my film Leicas. Problems introduced in the enlargement process alone exceed anything I've seen on a digital camera.</p>

<p>With regard to the M3, it seems to get mixed reviews, but mostly good. A few users at dpreview were not happy with the color from the M3, attributing that issue to the new sensor. Several sold theirs and bought the older M2 for its richer "Canon color" and better touchscreen interface. Check out the EOS M forum at that site to follow their experiences. As for me, I'm still not completely sold on the mirrorless idea yet, but I did purchase my "piece of snot" (as David refers to the M) M2 because I love having a camera as small as a Canon G-series that delivers dslr image quality, and the M2 does that while operating significantly faster than the original M. Coupled with the EF-M 22mm f/2, it's a wonderfully compact package with excellent IQ, and I feel comfortable leaving my dslr gear at home most of the time. I'll probably skip the M3 and stick with my M2 until I see what Canon plans to do with the M-system. I wonder if their decision to sell the M3 in the US as well as bringing all of the EF-M lenses to the US as well is part of ramping up the M-system and maybe finally getting serious about it.</p>

<p>Canon and Nikon obviously don't want to kill their golden geese, for the others (Fuji, Olympus, Sony etc) they had no geese, so they have been forced to go in a different direction. My take home message from reading around is that those who have invested in non-Canon mirrorless are dismissive of the Canon Ms., whereas those who actually have them quite like them.</p>

<p>I think if Canon do produce a professional mirrorless systen they will make a Sony A99-type camera not a Sony A7 type camera, so it will fit EF lenses without an adapter.</p>

<p><em>I think if Canon do produce a professional mirrorless systen they will make a Sony A99-type camera not a Sony A7 type camera, so it will fit EF lenses without an adapter.</em><br>

You've mystified me here! The point about mirrorless cameras is surely that the mirrorless design allows bodies to be much thinner (more compact) and lens register to be shorter, meaning all kinds of legacy lenses can be used. A mirrorless camera with the same register as an DSLR would not have these advantages.</p>

<p>It's a small advantage - many people think it is not much of an advantage. I don't think that is the point of mirrorless: the point is to remove the mirror and to give an EVF. The front to back distance is only a small part. If you keep that one dimension, then no new lens series is necessary. The rest of the camera can be smaller, if wanted (look at the Canon SL1 - much smaller than the equivalent Rebel). The size of DSLRs is only somewhat related to the mirror box. It may give you the option of marginally smaller wide angles, but for normal and telephotos it's a wash. If you want smaller: then APS or m4/3 seems a better option.</p>

<p>If you want to adapt existing lenses, then I agree a shorter lens to sensor distance is good, but for a company wanting to sell a camera system, that doesn't strike me as a long term source of revenue.</p>

Some people who are very attached to DSLRs don't think mirrorless has a size advantage, but they're mistaken. With

APSC or FX, a DSLR kit is going to be larger and heavier than a similar mirrorless kit, and if you're trying to build a

smaller travel kit it's much easier to do with mirrorless.

<blockquote>

<p>I think if Canon do produce a professional mirrorless systen they will make a Sony A99-type camera not a Sony A7 type camera, so it will fit EF lenses without an adapter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be a brilliant move, just at a time Sony has all but ceased making pellicle "A" cameras. Henry Ford put a holder for buggy whips in the Model T, but he moved on from there.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for me, I'm still not completely sold on the mirrorless idea yet, but I did purchase my "piece of snot" (as David refers to the M)...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to admit to a bit of snobbery here. But it isnt from what you probably think. My disappointment and sour attitude toward Canon in this regard is due to feeling extremely let down by them. To set the record straight, I love Canon as company that produces absolutely wonderful gear for photographers to use. Heck, an old Canon FDn 50/1.4 is pretty much permanently attached to my A7. The A-1 is one of my favorite all time film bodies. Their service is second to none and they have a long history of innovation behind them that has done nothing but good things for our craft.<br /><br /> <br /> But...recently they have, for what I am hoping is some really good secret reason, chosen to ignore a vibrant new segment of the camera market and have added insult to injury by seemingly also dismissing it as if it were a passing fad. This saddens me because I love the new mirrorless technology. I love the form factor, the EVF, the ease with which you can use old film lenses (which is about 99% of my photography)...the list goes on. My photography right now is based on mirrorless technology.<br /> <br /> And Canon, my favorite company, has nothing to offer in this segment except the M. And when I compare the M line to what other companies are bringing to the table, companies that are <em>SERIOUS</em> about mirrorless designs, then I have only one option with the M. I dismiss it as a piece of snot and sit here stewing about Canon and hoping they have some late game master plan.<br /> <br /> I believe the answer to this is really simple. For Canon (or Nikon for that matter) to properly exploit a high end, professional mirrorless system they will have to give up something that is very dear to them. They will have to design a fresh new mount and then produce a whole new line of lenses for it. They are understandably too scared to relinquish the dominance they now hold with the huge lineup of EOS lenses. The problem is that while they do have an enviable lens lineup it is based on a design from the 80's. For heavens sake, the EF mount will be 30 years old soon and entering its <em>4th decade</em>! Of course they could try to build in some type of EF adaptability but do you seriously want to hobble the design you will probably be using for the next couple of decades to a mount that is already almost 30 yrs old?<br /> <br /> Now is the time Canon. Bite the bullet, make a clean break. Just like when you abandoned FD for EF. The Canon of that time period correctly saw that the future was autofocus with electronic communication between lens and body. Do the same thing now. Understand the future is mirrorless and design from the ground up what has the potential to be the coolest, most reliable, best serviced professional mirrorless system on the planet.<br /> <br /> Canons seeming reluctance to do this is disappointing. The EOS M (again, to ME) is a joke. It is the complete misreading of market direction and the expected response of a moribund company more concerned with cranking out the same old dinosaur because its paid for instead of diving deeply into the murky waters of the unkown.<br /> <br /> Case in point. I went to drop off my A7 for servicing at Mikes Camera where it was purchased and had a great discussion with one of the salesmen. We discussed the stark contrast between the two large display cases on the wall behind the counter. In the right case were Canon and Nikon. Big, melted blobs of plastic or cast magnesium sat heavy and ponderous on the shelves, proclaiming to the world their dominance as if on sheer size alone.<br /> <br /> In the left case were Sony, Fuji and Oly/Panasonic. This case was vibrant and alive with fresh designs. Some gleaming cameras hearkened back to vintage cameras of old and some had shiny new futuristic shapes. Some sat squarely in between with what could be called a classic modern design. To see the two cases in such a way was very striking. We joked that it must have been the same back in the 80's when on one side was Minoltas fresh new designs with auto focus lenses and on the other all the old manual focus rangefinders and SLR's. The future was (and is) clearly writ for those who want to see.<br /> <br /> The salesman said with all seriousness that easily 90% of their sales came from the left case.</p>

<p>Canon had all the parts on the shelf to make a decent mirrorless camera, but they paddled around at the edge of the pool, and didn't make a splash. When they launched the M3, they didn't market it in the US. Now something has changed. Maybe the DSLR market has tanked: maybe the whole consumer camera business is being wiped out by smartphones. Either way, the M3 is Canon's suicide note. RIP.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>pellicle "A" cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very amusing I'm sure. It's not stupid. The Sony did have a pellicle type arrangement which was a mistake but with on sensor phase detection this is no longer necessary. Also Sony gave up on the DSLR series and failed to produce lenses and support because, presumably, they couldn't break into the market. The size of the camera is only one part of a system and you are doomed to have similar size lenses for the sacred full frame mirrorless as you are for DSLRs. The size of the camera itself is only one part of the picture.</p>