bernardf12: At least it has 14 Bit RAW. The only problem with the system is that there is no IBIS or stabilized primes.
Someone should tell Canon that people use cameras without tripods, and that people like fast inexpensive primes with circular apertures.
I don't see f2 as being slow, especially with IS, plus at 335g it isn't that heavy.I'm pretty sure Canon don't have much interest in trying to fight for the teeny sales numbers that go along with the premium mirrorless models and started off with P&S upgraders. Hopefully they will go upmarket at some point and make things more interesting.
epozar: no IS :(
I have the 16-35 f4, but you still can't beat shutter speed for some subjects and at 35mm the f1.4 gives you a 3x boost. I'll bet the corners are quite a bit better too (at f1.4 even).
Rey G: $679.99 for body only?! Canon USA you're doing it wrong. Are you guys purposely trying to have the M3 be a failure so you can justify EOL'ing the platform again in the U.S.?
Canon recc prices are a bit meaningless. Someone already pointed out you can pre-order the kit for $100 less than the srp from Canon direct. I do think they shoot themselves in the foot by attaching such high prices to stuff they don't really mean to sell for that, but they keep doing it so I guess they sell more to people liking the discount than people not buying as the srp was so high.I'm pretty sure they could sell it for $350 and make a profit, as the parts list is so reduced from low-end DSLRs on which they make loads of money. (They have huge volume advantages over all the mirrorless-only players.)
Sdaniella: New 24mm FF.eq.fov (15mm) is sorely missing from Canon's APS-C Sensor Lens linethe only one is EF-S 15-85mm (24-136)
for EF-M (or even EF), the following wide short zooms would be welcome for EOS M3:15-30mm (2x Zoom): 24-48mm FF.eq.fov15-45mm (3x Zoom): 24-72mm FF.eq.fov (recent rumours)15-60mm (4x Zoom): 24-96mm FF.eq.fov
longer zooms being less compact
Presumably you just use the EF-S 10-22 or 10-18 zooms via the adapter.
Garp2000: The export speed for the M-system is as slow as its autofocus :-)
Otto - I use a GH4 for video, but the dual-pixel AF in the 70D is miles ahead of all other video cameras so I have no idea what you were seeing - wrongly set up maybe? The M3 doesn't have dpaf though, presumably it'll crop up in a future higher-spec one.
You can fit all the EF stabilised primes (24, 28, 35) on it via the adapter and they aren't large or expensive. The trick is to find a deal where the adapter is bundled for free.
Zapirian: Is this stock they couldn't shift in the rest of the world?
I suspect it's Canon Japan getting fed up with Canon USA not selling the EOS-M3 as it makes it look less good as a camera. Perhaps coupled with the next M-series being something Canon USA do want to sell so they thought they would at least have a range of 2 when it came out. Canon USA might point out total USA mirrorless sales are so low they'll have trouble making money, but I'm guessing they lost that one.
Emacs23: At the cost of colors?Although that should not be such a huge problem considering how color blinded modern Canon cameras are.
I think what Brendon is suggesting is that Canon/Nikon could change the way they communicate with their existing lenses so that the Sigma lenses don't work but theirs do (as they have the full interface spec and Sigma don't). That already happens with Sigma lenses and some new cameras, but I assume it's not intentional by the camera manuf (?) and Sigma usually do a software fix for their lenses (I don't think they fix the old ones though).
The have a 35mm f2 with IS for people wanting to shoot video. It's a good lens. This is a knock-it-out-of-the-park lens and so nothing that might even slightly lower the quality was included (like IS).
DuxX: Interested to see comparison with Sigma 35mm Art. Beating Sigma will be very hard especially justifying that price difference.
I think your Canon link should be:http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_35mm_f_1_4l_ii_usmBearing in mind the wide-angle lines are at f1.4 that's just insane.Compare with the 135 f2 which is a very highly rated lens and only f2 at the wide end:http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_135mm_f_2_8_with_softfocusOh dear, that could have been an expensive chart...
mpgxsvcd: What is the most ISO invariant camera Dpreview has tested so far?
Look on sensorgen.info for cameras where noise varies least over ISO.
rsf3127: Michael Reichmann from Luminous Landscape says that those concerned about 12 bit raw compression are chicken littles.
Who am I to disagree?
I thought 12-bit Raw compression was Nikon, using a separate method that's less susceptible to visible issues?
Arizona Sunset: What's the context on this? Does it exist elsewhere, in other cameras? To what extent? Please help me understand.
It's down to how much the pixel noise varies with ISO. If the noise after 16x amplification (by the ISO amplifiers) is 16x the noise without it then you could just store the 1x data and multiple it by 16 in post processing. This gives a lot more highlight room as the brighter stuff isn't getting multiplied by 16 and running into the maximum possible value.
In reality no-one makes an ISO-less camera as they all have more noise at low ISO, but Sony sensors are a lot better than Canon sensors. (You can shoot ISO-less with Canon sensors, just you need to be at ISO 800 or so.)
For example a D810 has 5.5 electrons noise at ISO 100 and 2.6 at ISO 6400. So instead of shooting ISO 6400 you could shoot ISO 100 and then boost the brightness in the computer. You'd have a bit over 2x the noise, but the largest brightness you could capture would go from 793 electrons to 78,083.
A Canon 6D at ISO 800 has 5 electrons noise and 2.0 at ISO 6400 so you can play a similar game, but not at ISO 100/200.
futile32: I own the A7R and A7RII, but thankfully have yet to see these compression artefacts?
Am I right in saying that they only appear when you severely push a shot in Post production?
(Ran out of message size.)This also means smooth brightness changes get posterised. You'd (in the above example) store 300 for a few pixels of a gradient then jump to 428 for the next few.
BTW here's my original source for this info:http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.lexa.ru%2F2014%2F02%2F12%2Fsony_craw_ettr_szhatie_s_poteryami_teoriya_i_praktika.html
Within 16 pixel blocks of a single colour (R, G or B, which will be 32 pixels wide in the final image) it stores them as a minimum pixel value (exactly), a maximum value (again exactly) and then uses a 7-bit value for where each of the remaining 14 pixels are between the min and max. Hence if you have no more than 128 steps between the min and max all pixels are stored exactly, the bigger the gap the less exact the values. So if you have a light-dark edge (or just a single bright pixel like a star) in the block you might have a min of 300, a max of 10,000 and the rest of the pixels stored in multiples of 128 brightness steps (not 76 as it rounds to the next largest power of 2). Hence if you had a pixel at 370 the closest value you could store would be 428 (300+128). Pixels at 380, 390, etc would also all be stored as 428. This has a much more significant effect at the darker end (being 58 steps out on 9,000 is literally "in the noise" ). Hope that makes sense.
rfsIII: This reminds me of the Canons of a few generations ago when photogs figured out that certain higher ISOs on the 5D's were better than lower ISOs. They had quite a thing going there for a while.
My main question would be what do you tell a client when he or she sees the photos coming off your camera and they're way too dark. 99.9% of people cannot make the exposure adjustment in their mind so you'ld end up with a pretty freaked out client. In the Cinema world we can load look up tables to correct the image before it goes up onto the monitor for everyone to see. maybe there something you could do similarly with these images.
BTW on the Canons the Technicolor Cinestyle profile is allegedly S-shaped so I wonder if that would do something similar? It was originally designed for the 5DII and I've only just started playing with it on my 5Dsr.
Aaron Shepard: On Nikons, there may be a better way than Manual mode to take advantage of ISO invariance. You can go to Aperture mode and set Auto ISO to maintain a chosen shutter speed as a minimum -- as long as your max allowed ISO is not exceeded. This has the benefit of guaranteeing that you get your shot without going too many stops away from correct exposure.
At the same time, you can set Highlight-weighted exposure so that significant highlights are never blown. Then it's just a matter of bringing up the shadows.
This gives you a little more versatility and automation without much loss of control -- good for situations where you have to shoot fast.
I like that tip, thanks. BTW this is one of the advantages of an Optical Viewfinder as you can still see what you're shooting (although you can often turn off exposure simulation in EVF cameras, I'm not sure how well that works across models).
With the Canons if shutter speed is important I just tend to go fully manual at an ISO-invariant ISO (typically 800) and just sort everything out later. It can be a pain reviewing what you've got of course, especially if focus is critical. It's annoying staying quite a bit longer to be sure you get the shots and getting buried in them. I guess the answer is to use the raw processing tools in the cameras, but that does take a while.
I have a few questions:
Why doesn't the extra "pixel" size of a separate PDAF sensor capture way more light even if it only uses f2.8 as its aperture? For example the AF sensor in a 5Dsr is 19mm x 8mm and has 65 "pixels" (well, actually more as some points have multiple sensors, probably more like 250).Scroll down here for a picture of one:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5Ds.aspx
As the A7rII will shield the phase-detect AF pixels from half (more?) of the incoming light you presumably lose a stop that way, plus they are camera pixel sized? (I'm not sure what you lose through a DSLR's beam-splitting optics, but I thought it was less.)
Finally presumably they only detect lines in one direction, not horizontal, vertical and diagonal as per an off-sensor PDAF system or do Sony have a variety of organisations?.
Not that the A7rII AF isn't impressive, just I'm really not convinced by this particular argument so far, partly due to owners posting to the contrary.
Dr_Jon: Canon 5Ds teardown:http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-teardown
The 7DmkII has good weather sealing, see the comments in the tear-down:http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/11/cracking-open-the-7d-ii"For those who want to take my word for it and skip on to some other blog, the Canon 7D Mk II may be the best weather-sealed camera I've run across. It's excellent. "
mikedodd44: All the technology packed in there looks amazing but I have a nitty gritty question for any sony user and for the full review of this camera.
What about dust on the sensor? When you are actually using the equipment in the field and frequently changing lenses then dust and dirt will get on the sensor(or bit of glass in front of the sensor) and look horrible especially on video files. How well does the cleaning system work and is the sensor more prone to gunging up since there is no mirror. And what happens when you change lenses in a field of grass in full flower with clouds of sticky pollen everywhere, do the wet cleaning methods work?
I've been walking around with a GH4 and a 5Dsr recently, the GH4 sensor is exposed when you change lenses. Stopping down the GH4 yesterday was scary due to the amount of dust that had accumulated, but it's easier to get at to clean, no worries about the mirror coming down. Swings and roundabouts.