|
Hello mirrorless camera nerds. I just wanted to throw a note in here about my initial experience with the Canon EOS M3 vs the EOS M (called the M1 these days). I live in Japan where these cameras are slightly less unicorn like. This is a slightly tl;dr post, so, if you hate Canon and think the EOS M family is for retards feel free to skip. I know these things seem to be hated in North America so let me throw out some disclaimer: I had the EOS M for about 2 years prior to replacing it, in part because I got a really good deal on a kit with the 22mm EF-M, 18-55mm EF-M, EF mount adapter, and speedlite 90ex flash all included. I have a bunch of other EF mount lenses to go with my other not mirrorless camera, and with the smaller size it also made sense as "the camera with you is the best camera". Took me about 3 days to realize the uses for zoom lenses on this thing are all garbage, even mounting other EF zoom lenses yields the worst of the AF garbage behavior from the camera itself. So, this became a prime lens only camera. I usually carried the M1 around with only the 22mm, and I am looking to buy more EF mount prime lenses now that I have the M3. Nothing has changed there with the M3, the most surefire way to hate the camera is to put the 18-55mm kit lens on it and ponder your poor life choices. End disclaimer. Everything below is based on my experience with the 22mm EF-M lens on the M1 vs the M3, but may help you if you have an M1 and are thinking to upgrade it. The M3 body kit only costs $450 in Japan (about 55,000 JPY). I draw things badly and started using the hell out of the M1 when I started teaching myself backgrounds, perspective, etc. Not a lot of photos relative to pros, but the relevant apps are telling me I did about 14,500 photos on the M1 over those two years (I only kept about 3,500 of them, FWIW). So, it got some love. One of the main weaknesses of the M1 was it's lovely behavior in low light, even in manual mode. The M3 is better, but not perfect, and let me quantify. When taking photographs in medium to low incandescent light, the M1 takes decent (not over or underexposed, low noise) photos there with the 22mm at ISO 800, wide open / f/2.0, ~1/30. The M3 does it at ISO 1600, wide open / f/2.0, and somewhere between 1/60 to 1/125, with basically zero noise relative to the ISO800 on the M1. Higher ISO settings on either camera with reduced aperture / shutter speed leave visible noise and cause washout that does not exist in photos taken in bright light. I cannot for the life of me figure out why, because the EOS FF equivalents to these cameras do not fare so poorly. The AF on the M1 was horrifically slow even with the firmware update and the M3 is improved but is still slow as hell relative to other cameras. This is only really a problem if you are shooting action, but with a little bit of forethought can be preempted (and I managed to photograph my dogs being crazy often with the M1, so it is possible). The AF on the M1 was only usable in single point mode, as the multi-region AF got confused easily especially out of high contrast scenes. The newer 49-point AF on the M3 does a great job of finding the entire plane you are shooting and focusing accordingly, except to some reviewers when it doesn't, but I would imagine they are seeing this based on their commentary as the result of using the multi-point AF when they should be using the single point, e.g. portrait photos, as I've had no issues here. Outside of these two things, there's not much else to talk about in regards to a comparison against the M1 in technical terms. In less technical ways, the M3 body shape is much easier to hold, it feels sturdy as hell, even against the M1. The tilt screen is a great addition, and the extra knobs and dials do help navigate ISO/aperture/shutter speed settings more quickly than the touch screen on the M1 did. So, in conclusion: The M3 is a solid, genuine improvement over the M1, and if you already own an M1 (or M2, I guess, but it's biggest selling point over the M1 was that it came in pink and flopped for it even in Asia) - it's worth the upgrade just for the improved AF and better low light behavior. If you are considering mirrorless cameras, I think the limitations on the EOS M series are overblown relative to the small size and the ability to use any EF mount lens or Canon accessory, unless you actually need your camera to do 4k 1080p 60fps video in which case I am wondering why you are not buying a dedicated video camera for this. With that said, if you have no other EF mount prime lenses or Canon accessories, that's a more difficult choice. Plus, I don't think Canon is including the EF lens mount adapter in the EOS M3 kits for new buyers, which makes that an extra $80 or so just to use more than the one prime lens available in the EF-M mount. Note; we have some holidays coming up in Japan next weekend, and I was going to go be touristy for fun. If you guys in the thread are interested in seeing some examples of the M3/22mm lens applied to Tokyo street photography, let me know and I'll post them here as well. No promises they will turn out well, but I have high hopes from playing so far.
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
LiquidRain posted:Let's do some Mirrorless Tokyo Goon Silver Week Photography Walks! I could probably do this unless something comes up with work, which is probably a 1 in 3 chance of interruption on my part. If you guys coordinate a date/time, I'd prefer one of the weekdays because there will be less human activity and it looks like we're all going to be shooting mostly wide angle. I'll also see about picking up an extra LP-E17 battery, the shiny new EF 50mm f/1.8 STM and the ES-68 & EW-43 lens hoods since I never bothered buying them but if we're going out for a day I may as well... part numbers included to make this post into my shopping list. Neither lens seems valuable enough to bother with the lens filters. Edit: I also suggest we meet up somewhere near a coffee shop to get set up. While I'm not going to bother with standard UV filters, I'll likely grab a couple of my Marumi DHG Circular Polarizers from the 70D kit if it's particularly bright outside and will probably need someplace to assemble lenses. windex fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Sep 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:As for where we can shoot, we can figure that out once we have a day. The weather reports indicate the best day for no rain is going to be Monday, so my vote is there. I'll shoot you a PM with my LINE/FB info assuming you have PM's which I have not checked yet.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:I think everything in photographic gear is usually a compromise. You just have to pick the one that ticks the most boxes for you. The three top reasons I like the EOS M gear is because: 1) it works with my other Canon kit and all the investment into it mostly translates into more Canon kit. 2) They are not perfect gear by any means but learning how to work around the weaknesses leads to occasionally great photos. 3) I have no real complaints about image quality from their gear, and so long as you can live with it being slow, it will generally be pretty (M3 reproduces color for me as reliably as my other EOS FF's have). There is a lot of arguing in this thread about camera limitations, but I am not seeing any major points that were unknowns at purchase, especially when you throw in the track records of individual companies. I think the bigger problem is not any of these technical points - I have seen epic artistic photos off junk bin 35mm film cameras, taken with broken lenses, etc. But those guys knew how to work with the limitations of their gear (and in the case of broken lens collector guy, sought out gear with additional limitations). For people who have time to complain about their gear: Spend the time that would be spent complaining trying to figure out the most you can do with said gear outside of your currently rigid technical definition of perfection and have fun, because if you can't have fun as a enthusiast or even semi-pro / pro photographer with a interchangeable lens camera of almost any pedigree, you're doing it wrong (or working in a morgue with some very uptight co-workers).  Buy a new camera when one interests you, not because you "need" it to make up for problem X. If the answer is murky, as long as your current camera works ...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
Speaking of market segmentation, Canon is building a niche for EOS M to more widely define it's market segment, but I can't say I'm not excited: http://www.everyothershot.com/a-tilt-shift-adaptor-for-every-ef-lens/ Tilt-shift without $2,000 lenses would be fantastic. (I know there are already adapters for this, but, the extra features seem pretty worthwhile relative to those options, plus I have a dozen EF and EF-S lenses.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
This wound up being my favorite shot from the Tokyo mirrorless camera shot up today (edit: yesterday). hajimeno ippo is a garlic restaurant in this case, not a boxing manga. EOS M3, EF-M 22mm f/2.0 ISO 200 1/80. It was later in the afternoon and starting to dim down in the alleys. Left the vignetting in but cleaned up the minor squish from wide open distortion in Lightroom, otherwise as shot. windex fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:The STM motors are clearly slower with viewfinder PDAF, but when you use them in Live View, they are just as clearly way faster than the USM lenses. I have a Canon 70D and a EOS M3 I mostly use with EF mount lenses and own, for comparison, the following lenses: Sigma EF 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM A Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM I also have some other STM lenses but they are EF-M (and my experience with them is roughly the same as what I am about to say about the 50mm). I have also shot the Sigma EF 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A and have the same impression as the 24mm vs the EF 35mm IS USM. On the M3, which has no viewfinder, all of the Canon STM lenses are the slowest and quietest. The Canon USM is the noisiest and fastest. The Sigma HSM is almost equal to the Canon USM in speed and makes almost no noise, roughly equal to the Canon STM. Canon STM designs are intended for shooting video and prioritize quietness. The Canon USM designs are prioritized for shooting stills and make as much noise as required to get the job done as fast as possible. The Sigma HSM is probably a nicer balance. Having just run all of these lenses across my 70D in Live View, I have the same opinion, and I am not seeing a huge difference with the viewfinder other than when I shut half the lights off and the PDAF sucks. The M3 tends to prefer PDAF but falls back to CDAF quickly in low light for speed. edit: I stepped all of these to f/2 for comparison. windex fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Both of those cameras use PDAF in live view. Much like the A7R2 , which finally can focus really well with USM lenses. Ahh, okay. My use of the 70D these days is restricted to telephotos normally that I won't throw on the tiny M bodies and I was under the impression it was CDAF in live view and PDAF in viewfinder mode. I know CDAF is effectively disabled outside of live view on the 70D, but it may use PDAF in live view as well. I use the M bodies a lot more day to day but prefer fast primes on them over zooms and the bluegreen tinting on the EF-M lenses is gross 99% of the time. I'd suggest trying the Sigma HSM Art lenses to see what you get, then. But I'm in Japan, where Sigma lenses are easy to come by and try out. edit: I may be closer to correct than I first thought, the center focus on the 70D behaves differently at apertures under f/5.6, but while it skips the dual pixel tech there, it does work closer to the M3's hybrid apparently. Me, I usually just have manual focus peaking turned on and lenses in MF. windex fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Re: E-M5 If you have EF and M42 glass, the M3 lets you use all of it with adapters, and both mounts are readily available in EOS M adapter format. If you are used to the behavior of your glass on your 70D and T5i crops, those are at 1.6x with the EOS M's, and the E-M5 is a micro 4/3rds at 2.0x. If you want a lower price option for the body, Canon is about to release an EOS M10 entry level at a lower cost than the M3, but... it's a lesser camera, based on the M2.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
If you do go M3, the 22mm EF-M prime is your effective 35mm, but like all EF-M glass is plagued by the bluegreen or depending on your eyes, greenyellow tinting. This is because the lens coatings are a purpleish shade and not well canceled. It has a nice artistic effect, but is why I carry the Sigma EF 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM A as my general purpose lens. Using EF lenses at 300-600g plus adapter of weight doubles the mass and signifigantly reduces portability, but I carry a camera bag whenever I leave home. Buying just the body and mount adapter is advised if the bluegreen bothers you, check online for examples.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
TheGoatTrick posted:In the mean time, I can play this tiny camera massive pro lens game. But, I am about 10mm larger in every dimension on body and lens, and the whole thing weighs twice as much (mostly lens).  edit: I had to break out the EOS M with the kit lens to take this photo at like f/5 and it took my brain like six shots to get a usable image after being spoiled by my pile of f/1.4 to f/2 primes, this is why I don't use slow zooms. ;_; windex fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
This is what happens when you try to carry more than a handful of primes in your bag.  It would've been funnier with a Lecia M Monochrom with EF adapter, honestly. (Also, that lens is comical with a full frame body on it.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Yeah, it's pretty much just as silly with a 1dx hanging off the back of it. But it definitely wins the giant lens on tiny body competition to have it on an eos m The EOS M10, which was released finally, is actually a little smaller. Also, pretty sure any camera attached to giant telescope photo would beat this, so hopefully the astrophotography nerds don't notice our thread derail. FWIW, and more on topic: I mostly do street photography because I live in Tokyo, and most of it is low light after work, so the thought of either a slow zoom or a 200+ mm lens breaks my mind. But that Sigma 24mm is great for it. I haven't been able to find good poo poo to photograph for the two weeks I've owned it, but I've worked out the DOF at various distances and got some okay photos but nothing awesome like my inspired Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM break-in.  Although it is really loving pretty: http://photog.kthx.jp/p/japan/daiba/2015/10/9/half/IMG_1113.jpg @ ISO100 f/1.4 1/8s (This photo came out awesome given both the beer glass and camera were handheld.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Adapters that line up the sensor and back of the lens at the correct back focus distance relative to the sensor location should only impact the field of view relative to the different crop factors of both sensors. Effects of atmospheric dispersion and compression (relative to bokeh) will be relative to the same lens with the same back focus distance on a camera with the same pixel size. If your camera has a smaller pixel size, effects of atmospheric dispersion or compression will be more obvious at greater distances or a given depth of field. If your lens on an adapter can reach infinite focus, the resulting back focus distance of the lens is correct. The focal length and depth of field remain largely unchanged.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
You replied to the wrong post. My point was just to fill in the technical terms. Also, the FOV changes, not the FL. It's a distinction many miss and it screws up DOF calculations among other things.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
zachol posted:The best way to think about crop sensors is really that they just crop out a smaller portion of the image. How is it that you correctly understand the focal length doesn't change and crop only influences FOV but incorrectly think the apreture is shifted? Jusr because more light is discarded by it not hitting a sensor does not mean the light that does is reduced. Pixel size is likely the culprit in any experienced loss of light between say FF and APS-C or m4/3rds and the bigger problem is your camera is probably lying to you about its relative sensitivity on the ISO scale. That's a different problem and tests like those run by dxomark show ISO100 sensitivity ranges all over the place (+/- 60) between vendors and individual cameras within a vendors lineup. But it has nothing to do with the lens or crop factor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
zachol posted:Sorry, I didn't mean to talk about light loss, only blur/bokeh. It wasn't directly in response to the question, a little off topic. Ahh okay. I did note that pixel size changed atmospheric dispersion and compression in my original reply. Also, I love using the Sigma 50mm on a crop for portraits because relative to actual 80-85mm lenses the DOF is razor thin and leads to more interesting photos. Espeically when doing portraiture in public spaces where blowing out the background is more important. Alehkhs posted:If I don't use a speedbooster (totally getting one, 'some day'), is the incoming light the same at least? Or is it decreased when you adapt a lens to a smaller sensor and a speedbooster brings it back up? Light metering wise it should be identical. edit: By the way, speed boosters are glass and in almost all cases, more glass will degrade your image quality. It's no different than the arguments for/against teleconverters or even lens protectors/UV filters (though those go on the front). Just buy faster lenses if you need more light. windex fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
MeruFM posted:metabone boosters are really good though, and don't come cheap for that reason. They are also deep behind the apeture so there shouldn't be refraction issues like with UV filters. The most effective argument in good vs bad I can make is to rephrase it as: required vs not. Circular polarizers and neutral density filters, along with color and IR or UV filters for very specific types of IR/UV/monochrome photography, are absolutely needed to accomplish the end result. Speedboosters aren't. And analog optical signal amplification in all forms, even exotic optical networking, is always lossy, even if not very.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Don't buy Canon EOSM and Samsung of course. Going to argue against this. The EOS M10 would probably do what they want to do for $500 with the kit 15-45mm lens. This would leave $1300 to buy the EOS M to EF adapter ($70), a real macro lens (EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM - $450) and something fast prime like for night time (EF 35mm f/2 IS USM - $550). It doesn't do the weatherproofing but does everything else. It also supports NFC and WiFi. The M3 is overkill for the requirements list, unless you need the EVF or hot shoe, but there is room in the budget for it. The M3's 18-55mm kit lens is serviceable but not as nice as the new 15-45mm on paper. The M10's autofocus speed is likely to be somewhere between the M1/M2 and M3. Anyone who suggests blowing all of the budget on camera body and one lens has money to burn. Save money on camera, blow money on lenses, buy new camera later. Plus all the EF/EF-S glass ought to work with a Metabones adapter on an a7R II when Sony somehow puts Canon out of business or whatever weird fantasy ya'll are living comes to fruition.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Saros posted:Oh nice, i'd be tempted if shipping and taxes werent murder to here. Samyang is Sigma about 12 years ago, every lens is hit or miss. And I don't just mean between individual designs, but individual parts. Order a lens you've seen good example images of from somewhere with a liberal returm policy if possible.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
With all the whining in this thread, clearly all M4/3rds cameras should have replaceable backs like medium format cameras do. They already have the multivendor lens system.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Come on, nobody knows about the M3 and let alone recommend it. You coworker must be recommending ESO DSLR system which is frankly the most sensible recommendation for system camera beginners with a modest budget. timrenzi574 posted:Unless you're already in on canon and looking for a small body to put your lenses on, don't buy into eos-m until canon decides to buy into it. There's four native lenses for it - they have not shown any kind of commitment for all people joke about Sony and their ADD when it comes to mounts. Dear uninformed internet brosefs, The M3 has been out for almost a year in Japan and is a good APS-C camera with EF-M lenses and a great one with the EF/EF-S mount adapter. The EOS M cameras are not like EOS DSLR cameras (they have entirely different software), but they have access to the whole EOS DSLR range of equipment mostly (flashes, lenses, etc). This thread loves to talk about using adapted lenses with speedboosters but for some reason using IQ/optically neutral in-system mount adapters (in systems with plenty of fast and speciality lenses available) is bad.  The primary issue with the EOS M series and most other mirrorless cameras is that they keep getting refreshed yearly. Canon is not immune to this. The secondary issue with the EOS M3 specifically and my only real complaint against it as a still image camera is that the fastest shutter speed is 1/4000, which sucks now and then when using really fast lenses (e.g. f/1.4) on a clear and sunny day outdoors. Canon released 2 new EF-M lenses this year in Japan. According to rumors: They are planning a few more for next year, and there is an mirrorless pro body coming, which will probably make use of the "use any EF lens as a tilt-shift lens" patent. They also released a new camera, which is lower in spec from the M3, and since they are preparing to release one at a higher spec, I am pretty sure running 3 lines of mirrorless cameras for different segments makes them as committed as anyone else. The 55-200mm was announced in 2014 but supply shortages made them only start trickling into retail in buyable form around the time the M3 was released. So.. if you were to buy into the M3 fully, you would indeed be buying into the EOS system to get the most out of it, and for casual photography the 5 already existent EF-M lenses are good enough for running around town. Canon has committed a lot to the system, far more than the EOS M would've indicated given its lackluster sales, and the rumors are pointing it into the direction of "serious about it". The M3 buys a lot of credibility as it is their current best APS-C sensor, sans dual pixel AF 7D Mark II which honestly doesn't look better, just has more features for some applications. The sensor in the 760D/T6s/8000D is the same, so once you throw in the mount adapter you have a smaller that, basically, except the controls on the M3 are actually easier to use and the exposure compensation dial is great (though limited to +/- 3ev). The only reason the M3 is even available in the US is because Canon saw better than expected sales in Asia and Europe and while you can try to pin its "impending failure" in the US on the differences between the US vs Asia and Europe, as a white American living in Japan I can pretty much summarize that up by: Anyone who thinks there is one is full of poo poo (except in the US the terrorists are Christians). I remain in the camp though that wishes Canon would compete against the Sony a7 Series. Nikon probably won't unless Canon does, and Canon is pretty much the only not Sony company who is actively working on high resolution image sensors in any meaningful way (5DS/5DS R). With a new 1D and 5D due out the next year, though, I doubt this is going to happen in 2016. With love, fat white guy in Japan P.S. I now own a 5D3 I bought begrudgingly to do a job but still shoot the M3 quite often, especially for street photography where looking through a viewfinder is an invitation for unwanted attention. When I needed the 5D3, it was specifically because I had the lenses and just not the sensor to properly handle an event venue (needed high ISO IQ and more frame width), and by virtue of being in system already with the 70D/M3, all I had to do was switch to a different body. I would like to see the Sony APS-C and/or Micro 4/3rds camp do that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Eh, don't give Canon too much credit. Their 5DS sensor is more or less just the APS-C one scaled up. And as far as Nikon and sensors go, they shop at Sony, so... v That's true, but, at least they are trying. Also, look at the high ISO comparisons between a 5DS R particularly and the 5D3 when the 5DS R is scaled down to 5D3 size and the IQ is slightly better at all ISOs, but the high ISO performance of the 1D and even 6D is still better. I'd like a 5DS R but will never justify the cost. Just like I'd like one of the 50 Megapixel MF bodies and backs but I bought a Tesla Model S instead because that's how ridiculous the pricing on medium format is. :v
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:So would you say a M3 is a good backup camera if you have EF/S glass (the main reason why I will probably get a 7Dmk2 as a 40D replacement is the better AF and my semi large investment into EF-S glass (oh god how did I spend 1000 on EF-S glass), or a good ultra portable setup, or should I wait for this hypothetical EOS-M(pro) I imagine the M pro is not coming till the end of 2016, the last rumor I saw said before photo plus, which is next October. Serious talk: The EF-M mount in its entirety is only intended for hobbyist and consumer users. If you buy an M3, the EF-M lenses just make it into a overspec'd point and shoot. Additionally: EF-M lenses have color tinting issues in the corners and the newer ones seem better. The AF on the 7D mkII is the dual pixel crosstype, the M3 is 49 point PDAF that falls back to CBAF and CBAF works pretty much anywhere your lens is clear, wide open on the fast Sigma Arts, that's only in the center or just off. The PDAF points are not all piled in the middle either. The manual focus peaking is as good as a C300 and similarly works while zoomed in. So, depends on how much and how you shoot. If you do street photography, buy an M3, you will get mileage in subjects not reacting to a camera. If you shoot sports or wildlife, the 7D mark II is a better choice as the DPAF is faster. With adapter and body only you're looking at like $800 max? Some of the kits have the EVF, which is nice but has a questionable future and takes over the hotshoe but tilts up 90 degrees. I still use the M3 over the 5D for less than full body portraits in controlled lighting. The tripod mount on the mount adapter is super handy for keeping a blackrapid attached to the body and a tripod on. It also weighs like 1/3rd of the 5D3. The only other gotcha I'm aware of is if you need a remote trigger, your only option on the M3 is smartphone. All my stuff is packed, getting ready to head to the US for most of December, shooting a work event and doing overdue family portraits especially of ever growing nieces this trip:  (The 5D3 has the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art, the M3 has the 24mm 1.4 Art.) timrenzi574 posted:The M & M2 had normal EOS software on them. The M3 got some half powershot software which I don't understand as a choice. ... It doesn't matter if you can adapt all the EF glass in the world ... No, all releases have been Powershot firmware to some degree. The M and M2 were EOS software modified by the Powershot team to work with the touchscreen, the M3 software is Powershot like but runs on the M3 and (I think) M10, indicating they are collapsing branches. What actually matters though is that they're dumping DIGIC 5 / 6 format raws like EOS DSLRs. Most ML features that were done for EOS M are standard on the M3 and CHDK for Powershot is much more portable anyway, is the consensus between ML and CHDK developers. I believe they are trying to fine tune the video modes but almost all CHDK features (except the interval timer) are built in otherwise. As far as adapting glass, Canon's original commit was to daily use/consumer with EF-M and hobbyist/enthusiast markets via adapter to EF/EF-S, and since the 5D3 is also an "enthusiast" camera to Canon ... I really don't see a problem. Most Sony a7 fans wind up buying a metabones adapter to use the a7R II with EF glass anyway. If it's good enough for them, why complain about the EF lens lineup when other vendors are still striving to be Canon? Mirrorless bodies have their own merits without factoring in lens mounts.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
That's fair but the thing is, none of the sister cameras to date have EVFs, controls that work as well, and while the SL2 may, I don't believe any of the other rebel equivalents have tilting displays. Further, all of the alternatives have mirrors with under 100% coverages, mirror slap, and the like. It's possible to do absurd things with the M3, like handhold 1/10 exposures in the dark at f/1.4 with no shake. The most compelling factor? The M3 body, at least in Japan, costs about what the metabones adapter does. While the lens adapter hurts for a new buyer (it goes for as little as $40 in Japan but I think the Canon USA MSRP is $150), Canon can only improve the EOS M system and every new camera has been a great improvement over the prior. For a few hundred bucks a year you get an ever improving camera that fits in the same system as all your other gear, and if buying into it new, sticking to full frame lenses yeilds you an immediate upgrade path you can use whenever you need it. Maybe slap them on a 5DS R or a a7R ii. Stick to the Sigma Global Vision lenses and for very little money you can have all of them moved to Nikon and back for shits. But, for what you are describing, I don't use the EOS M3 like that. I have a Nikon 1 V3, it has twenty billion autofocus points and I have two lenses that span from 10 to 110mm (27mm to 297mm effective w/ crop). It will take crazy photos and it lives in a bag that attaches to my larger bag(s) strap usually set in monochrome mode with the digital red filter enabled for JPEGs. It has no AA filter and takes great B&W snaps, and the whole thing cost me under $800. It's not a camera. It's a toy. The M3 is a camera that behaves like a camera. I would rather my cameras be less gimmick and more camera, and the M3 is the best option for mirrorless that fits into the above for me. And that's because even if you aren't bought into the system, buying into it gives you the most options moving forward for the least cost in the long run.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:It's telling that you're the only person who advocates for the system, but fyi Olympus and Sony have IBIS that allows for 1/2 second handheld exposures (two years ago) with Panasonic near behind. The primary problem is that if you're a fan of Canon's other gear (or Canon system gear in general) and buy an M3 you're doing it only because you have to, per other-than-Canon system users. In the long run though, when the micro 4/3rds users, Sony APS-C users, or Fuji users need an upgrade to do something beyond specific types of consumer or enthusiast work, they will have to ditch their entire system or buy into an entirely new system alongside it. The a7R ii enthusiasts and pros are already largely using Canon mount lenses or have a lot of money to blow on Zeiss. Cameras are literally the least important part of photography in terms of cost and required functionality, and that hasn't changed since film. Just like with film, the cheapest camera that gives you the most options still wins. This methodology is not bad in that the camera with you is the camera more likely to be used, but this interview with Fuji kind of hits the nail on the head, then misses it: http://fujifilm-blog.com/2015/06/30/interview-with-mr-takashi-ueno-from-fujifilm-tokyo-why-dont-fujifilm-make-full-frame-dslr/ "Mr. Ueno: Yes, if you attach the large and heavy high performance lens to the full frame DSLR, then you will certainly get high image quality. The combination will maximize the potential of the full frame, but if you have to carry the bulky lens everywhere to achieve the high image quality, then this is not what FUJIFILM is aiming for.* Now, carrying a bulky lens is annoying. But not offering an option to attain that image quality in your entire system is silly, and later in the interview specifically excluding it and comparing the ideal work of your camera to snapshots and documentary photography, .. is not inspiring. Also, I know about the IBIS stuff and I have some EF mount lenses that have image stabilization, but, most of the glass I want to use is the giant fast kind that doesn't need it. Besides, IBIS is an attempt to make the camera important, which is ridiculous with expendable digital bodies (and all of them are expendable unless you're talking about medium format backs you could sell to make your house payment for a year or two).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
HolyDukeNukem posted:The Fuji guy is specifically talking about Full Frame mirrorless lenses. They don't want to produce a full frame mirroless camera because it's near impossible to design lightweight high image quality full frame lenses. It renders owning a mirrorless camera useless. Who cares how light a camera is when the associated lens is 2 or 3 times it? The difference between owning a Canon M3 and a 5d3 is negligable if you have a 70-200 f2.8 attached to both. But this is where the disconnect is between my thoughts and threads thoughts: Your proposition assumes the camera is the more important part of the equation. Over the lenses. It's not.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
HolyDukeNukem posted:No, what I'm saying is that Fuji has realized that to make mirrorless comfortable while also providing the best image quality, full frame sensors aren't possible. Instead, they are providing similar levels of image quality in a smaller, more comfortable package with APS-C. Most of Canon's best lenses are full frame and they were designed to be comfortable with bigger cameras. It's not about the camera whatsoever, it's about comfortably taking pictures. Sure but if comfortably taking pictures is all that matters why not just use your phone? In the IQ debate the majority of it in post 20 megapixel camera world revolves around pixel size and lens quality. Lens quality is way more important than pixel size, because pixel size primarily affects low light photography, but once you go past a certain point.... Fuji makes some great lenses, but the pixel size of their sensors is limited by the APS-C format and is no better than anyone else's for luminance. They also can't go the huge megapixel route with small pixels because the sensor size won't allow that either. So by default, on Fuji's system, you could take great well lit photos that might equal photos in equivalent conditions by other cameras, just like the M3 can hit great photos (sometimes better, depending on aperture) using the same lenses as the 5D3. But, just like the M3, the minute you are indoors or it's dark out, you are hosed for most types of photography, because even if you shoot every photo in infinite framed at hyperfocal distance, f/1.4, the more you wrench the ISO the worse your photos gets until they're garbage. And there's no upgrade path to fix that. Those Fuji lenses cannot be used on a full frame camera, and Fuji doesn't even make one to upgrade to. The majority of photography that pays (good) money occurs in those environments and it is poo poo difficult work. Mr. Wookums posted:He wasn't making the claim that the camera is most important, nor has anyone when talking about the EOS system. The native lens system is garbage and being able to adopt a 70-200 is applicable to literally any other mirrorless system (and you would want to buy Sony to also take advantage of native sony E and FE mounts) while not having the ability to have a small, compact system. The thing is that the EF-M lenses are perfectly usable here (EF-M 55-200mm) and would compete favorably for IQ against the G7, even with the slower lens, even at a longer shutter duration/higher ISO to compensate. That's not the point though, my point is all the little lenses that cannot be fit onto a full frame camera aren't worth paying any money for because their utility is compromised by one thing or another along the way. The novelty of the M3 is that it just works with EF glass and it works as well as EF-M glass.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:But this is what I've been trying to say - if you want a little body to slap your EF glass on, great. If what you want is a small system camera, not great because the system is lacking as of right now. If canon starts churning out primes for it, I would be more enthusiastic about recommending it, because I do like Canon. I like their ergonomics, I like their color science, I like their UI, etc, etc. My only point in persisting the futile internet argument is that - small system camera is not the only benefit of a mirrorless camera. The Leica SL and Sony a7 series are not small. EVFs with live histograms, the lack of mirror slap, etc, alone are all good things and cameras should go that way by all means in my opinion. When the emphasis is on the compact system camera, it's putting an unnecessary weight on the camera part of the equation and the CSC size benefits are not the only reason to like mirrorless.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
But, see, that's already answered. The underlying issue there is more like you have Intel/AMD (Canon/Nikon) and Via (Everyone Else). Intel can afford an itanium class misstep, recover, and even if its bad they'll stick by it for awhile. Via can't. The problem with this analogy is that photography is art. Here, Canon/Nikon provides an entire system of not only pencils but also brushes in different sizes for all canvas sizes and the competition refuses to entertain production of brushes because covering big canvases isn't applicable to people making anatomical drawings. This thread dismisses the Canon/Nikon mirrorless cameras quite often without regard to development of the photographer, and it's easy to do so given the expense of the big systems, but most people shooting the CSC only systems are in for a lot of extra expense converting gear later.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:The vast majority of people aren't looking for that, though, and most consider the M3 to have too many drawbacks to be a primary camera. That's why we don't recommend it. But you could make the argument that no camera is suited to be a primary camera. They all do a range of things. And almost all of them take great stills in the environment they are built for. The thing is, for a still image camera to still image camera comparison, most of your first set of points is subjective and the second set is objective. How are the majority of people looking for subjective traits over objective ones? There must be objective reasons the CSC systems are better right? I mean, we have size, weight, size/weight of in system lenses, you can try to throw video in? What else is there that actually makes them more awesome? I spent about 4-5 hours reviewing micro 4/3rds options before giving up and going with the Nikon 1 V3 as my "point and shoot+" because beyond marketing materials trying to make me feel really good about buying Olympus cameras, I could not find a reason that trumped "I've never owned a Nikon camera lets try that high speed shutter and fancy AF out". As it turns out, " no manual focus rings" wound up being annoying but misses the point of the system. And the Nikon 1 system is awful. While I have been picking on Fuji in this thread that's because they're probably the most viable competitor to the M3. But beyond size/weight considerations, the objective drawbacks of the Fuji APS-C system seem to bog it down.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Borachon posted:Beyond size, weight, excellent controls, and great lenses, you mean? Yeah, that's a terrible system. I really have hated every minute of learning photography with a used X-E1 and the 18-55 kit lens, and continually wished I had gotten a used 50D and canon kit lens for the same price instead, so I could have had a bigger camera with worse lenses and worse controls. Cost is a good objective reason. But, when the 50D was new, it was a great camera. The cost argument is difficult though, because it assumes the systems with no upgrade path will always meet your needs. rawrr posted:I think you're projecting your personal preferences and needs onto the broader market, where plenty of pros have happily switched from FF DSLRs to mirrorless systems, nevermind the average DSLR buying prosumer for whom mirrorless systems are not only adequate, but better suited to their needs. But this still doesn't quantify any objective reasons for doing so. I mean, I have gotten some amazing shots on the Nikon 1, but I'd not attempt to use it to shoot a wedding or concert.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:And I guess in windex's world no option to upgrade to full frame is the no-go here? (so why does the Nikon 1 get a mention...?) In windex's world I guess he considers only the price to be objective? If we're going to be completely anal about this argument, even that's subjective - price is object, cost is relevant. My point also is just that none of these arguments hold real weight, but you guys are giving advice as if they do. Thats the problem with subjective arguments. Also, comedy answer re: Nikon 1... At least there's an F mount adapter. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:turn it off in the settings The number of times i touch my 5D3 screen to do something it can't do to begin with is infuriating. I should leave my M3 and the 5D3 in the same bag until they gently caress and praise the first offspring lacking crudely anointed dolphin flippers as my new god. This is just as likely to work as Canon is to release a decent mirrorless anytime soon.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Dear Thread, While my M3 is for EF mount backup still, I broke down and bought an Olympus PEN-F and a Voigtlander (Cosina) NOKTON 17.5mm f/.95 after reading several reviews of both. This is replacing my Nikon 1 V3 toy camera because I am tired of the downsides of it. About the only upside was the pop-up flash, but the EVF is built in on the PEN-F. I had to order the lens as the camera stores don't seem to have regular stock in Akiba, it gets here tomorrow morning, and I'll post a review sometime next week after a week of shooting it. Spoiler: Hate the menus on PEN-F already. Love, Everyone's favorite EOS M System user. edit: The focus ring on this lens is so smooth. 
windex fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:And do the om-d's raws come with distortion & vignetting correction baked-in? I've realized that my versions of ACR/LR don't have lens profiles for any oly lenses. The MFT standard provides that cameras copy correction data from the lens itself to the RAW, and I know LR applies those with no prompting, wanted or not. If you want optical character to shine through, options seem to be voigtlander or disable in camera, but the PEN-F only gives me the option to disable vignette correction as far as I can tell (menus lol), and you'd still have a possibly inaccurate distortion map to your copy of a mass produced lens. I tend to like quirks wide open and if I want a clean raw on any camera I can shoot at f/4. Dunno why manufacturers consider that stuff defects, but I just argued with a woman yesterday who says any image not in perfectly sharp infinite focus is garbage, and I'm guessing she buys more camera manufacturer made lenses than I do. windex fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
transient posted:Also need help in selecting a camera. Step 1: Evaluate the camera and lens combos you can afford. Evaluate cameras by shutter speed, ISO performance, and color / dynamic range. Evaluate lenses by the way you like to take photos. Example, for cameras: I shoot in the dark a lot, and prefer cameras with fast shutters (preferably 1/8000), good ISO performance (mostly noise free up to ISO1600, ISO3200 prefered), and I like the Canon/Panasonic/Olympus sensor cold/blueish-dominate hue because I find I don't have to work on it much in post. Example, for lenses: I prefer fast primes that open really wide (f/2 or below), because I shoot in the dark a lot and do not do sports or wildlife photography. I also do not mind the legwork of a prime, and only really care about lenses with focal lengths between about 24mm and 135mm. Step 2: Use every camera that meets those requirements. Pick the one that's easiest for you to use and DO NOT worry much about features you do not understand right now, but try to insure that you pay some consideration to lens availability in the mount for the camera and if an adapter is okay or not for you. Step 3: Once you have the camera down, generally speaking ignore the kit lenses and borrow/rent whatever lenses you can find that meet your requirements. Then, buy lens(es) accordingly. Do not buy a lens you will not regularly use - you can rent those. I have taken some very good photos with an EOS M/M3 and the 22mm EF-M prime. The camera is not great, though the sensor is plenty fine for me, and the lens is just ok. I have taken a few great photos with the M3 and the Sigma art primes for EF mount via adapter. I no longer shoot the M3 except as backup or when I have a special need for an APS-C sensor crop factor as the camera hits a wall at extremes. I mostly shoot a 5D3 DSLR with 24/35/50/135mm lenses, and I just bought an Olympus PEN-F and a 35mm equivalent for it. Of those three, the only one that meets my requirements and hits your price point is the M3. Your answer will probably be different, and since thread hates Canon and even I just said the camera is just okay, something will probably have to give. Hint: it's probably your budget. (The Olympus PEN-F/Lens combo I picked up ran a bit north of $2k, half of that was camera, other half was _one_ lens and some minor accessories.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:And then there's the color processing Fuji provides. I don't have a Sony example as I had sold mine by then, but I do have a Canon example. I know you love Fuji and I know I don't but your Canon problem in that comparison is mostly down to two things: You do not have the same light at the same angles. Your white balance is different. You make a good point in general that Fuji is a better experience if you do not want to work in post, but it's not really fair to imply that the data is not there, somehow, when I was able to tweak the white balance sliders in Lightroom on your Canon jpg and get 90% of the way to your Fuji image without the raw.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:And yes, my point was Fuji is much better than me (and Canon) at metering and image/color processing out of the camera. You could fault me for being bad at post-processing, knowing what needs to be done to make an image pop. (and I am awful at it) I mean, that's fine, but, when you make correlation to dynamic range, you are faulting the sensor. I have yet to see an image shot with a higher dynamic range sensor past about 9-10EVs in raw that could not be corrected to visibly aproximate or nearly match another camera except for vs Foveon sensors. Past this, display deviation (even on calibrated displays) and ink limitations impact things way, way more. Fuji is a bit different looking because its not bayer but the tech, unlike Foveon, is pretty similar. What I usually see out of cameras that proclaim high dynamic range in on camera JPEG or otherwise is yellows turned green and vice versa that doesn't actually exist to the eye, and I'd rather deal with my cold blue images than that because at least Canon metering is reliable, even if reliably awful in many situations. That's why I carry grey cards, it's a cheap hack that insures accurate colors most of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
LiquidRain posted:When I was talking about DR in my G+ post I was referring to this earlier photo I took which still had another 1 to 2 stops left in the highlights around the sun to pull in had I chosen to. At that point I'd had my 7D and EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4L for years, and I am confident that without bracketing I wouldn't have had the highlight detail or the resolution in the shadows I had with the Fuji - it'd have been one or the other. The 7D hated facing the sun, and the Fuji was a great upgrade in that regard. You can compensate, yes, but there's nothing like pulling in the highlights to see the wisps of my butts around the sun. I am totally going to nail you back with an EOS M3 photo that was facing the sun for fun. I am going to link these because they are full size jpegs. I dislike HDR modes/software conversions because they do poo poo like this: http://photog.kthx.jp/p/ettl_example/ettl_hdr_comparison.jpg Note: This has a lens correction profile applied which I neglected to apply to the series below. So, let's forget that. Let's use the one of that set most overexposed. Here's the original: http://photog.kthx.jp/p/ettl_example/ettl_orig.jpg  Using the image most exposed to the left in lightroom, I quickly tried three totally bullshit methods of recovering the image. First, I overexposed the image by 1 1/3rd stop and drug down the whites and highlights, as well as the blacks a bit. This failed to recreate the HDR look: http://photog.kthx.jp/p/ettl_example/ettl_one.jpg  Second, I left the exposure alone and tweaked the highlights/shadows/whites/blacks, this really cannot compensate for the golden hue of the sun: http://photog.kthx.jp/p/ettl_example/ettl_two.jpg  Third, I drug the exposure down and blew out the blacks and this looks fine (at least, better than the HDR with similar characteristics): http://photog.kthx.jp/p/ettl_example/ettl_three.jpg  Because this is a Canon sensor, like every Canon sensor: the blacks and shadows lack detail, so there is some grain in those areas you probably will not notice or care about as a composition as a whole. But, if I take that third image and drag down the exposure even further to -4: http://photog.kthx.jp/p/ettl_example/ettl_four.jpg  I have plenty of detail in highlights on the most overexposed in the set off my shittiest camera.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 16:14
|
|