Canon EOS M3 real-world samples

I am surprised that so far, no one seems to have commented that the M3's IQ ought to be on a par with the Canon 760/T6s as it shares the same sensor and processor http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-760d-rebel-t6s

That review concluded "Its image quality is on par with the best of its peers and the camera is capable of creating beautiful photos"

It would therefore be surprising if the conclusion to the M3's review is dissimilar.

The M3's weaknesses are not its IQ but its features, which lag its MILC peers.

Funny how ppl are talking how a6000 is better, when here http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_M3/outdoor_resolution.shtml the M3 is better

It seems that what Dan is very kindly taking the heat for in this set of shots would actually be a matter of Adobe Photoshop/ACR, and how it is chosen to be used, along with the faults of a kit lens.

- why on earth not use the lens correction, especially with a kit lens having lots of chromatic aberration, which blurs the shot? The camera does so correct, after all. Compare 45 and 46, the landscape with the blue-shirted guy low left. With ACR, white balance is much better than the camera does, trying to turn the land grey. But all detail is blurry - because ACR lens correction was not used. Blur on the guy, and you can see the color fringes on sky edges of landscape which caused it.

(cont'd - I hate this comment editor)

I just sold my M3, EVF, 11-22, hood & adapter purchased through Amazon Japan last Spring. IQ was actually okay. I simply couldn't hold that tiny bastid in my big clumsy man hands without accidentally pressing buttons that changed settings willy nilly.

Here are some additional photos from the M3 using mostly the EF-M lenses (and the nifty 50 for some). Not sure if this helps or hurts the case, but I feel like it has been producing some pretty good results for me.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/576731851/albums/canon-eos-m3

It's really odd that almost all pictures are with the kit lens or UWA zoom. The only pictures taken with a prime lens (the 22mm F2.0) are at 3200 ISO and above.

Please post a few picts with the 22mm under normal conditions at reasonable ISO. That lens is really popular with the EOS-M crowd, and shots with it would be most helpful for folks considering upgrading.

And while you are at it throw in a few picts with decent EF or EF-S canon glass using the adapter?

Thanks!

Since two weeks or so my M3 pics can also be raw processed in DXO10pro. With the 5D3 presetting applied it seamlessly fits into mixed productions with my 5d3 and 7D2. Love it also for the 11-22 which is clued on the m3 (only the 100mm IS macro replaces it from time to time!). Had all three cams on a Svabard trip the last weeks and could not be satisfied more.

Well, I love my TWO EOS-M's and have played with an M3 but even as a Canon fan I cannot see the M3 being a breakthrough camera with the likes of Olympus, Sony and Panasonic in the way. Ah well, I don't think Canon has gone mad with massive production this time around so I doubt that the M3 will become REALLY cheap like the older M did. Shame.

and now for an thorough review: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_M3/

Fine if you like slushy noisy soft images with ropey colour.

Argh! I really want to like this camera, it would be perfect for real estate stuff with the 11-22mm, but I use the shadow slider prodigiously and I'm not encouraged by the RAW examples given.

There is nothing wrong with the camera, as in most cases I prefer OOC jpegs compared to the RAW output ones. There is something wrong wit the taste of the "post processor". At least compared to my taste. I am also a Nikon guy with different preferences (and color gamut).

Isnt it great how DPReview only bother with this camera because the USA are getting it. Didnt matter that Europe already had it, so much for a world wide community on here.
Whats the point of posting poor real world samples (see, the word "world" is used but apparently this doesn't mean there is life outside of the USA).
There are loads of images posted all over the net by real photographers already.
Must be a slow news week.

Thank you dpreview for taking care of my GAS!
Along my 5dIII I have the M and the M2. Even compared with OOC jpeg these here look truly lomo like.

So I guess the M3 must be completely crap, and I have to stick to my older M's. Just wonder how all the others got great pictures out of this little thing, even with jpeg...

No idea what happened there, but if I was Canon I would be seriously pi**ed at you guys! No I idea how many people hit your page daily, but I guess you can hardly repair the damage you did.

Using the M3 for 3 months now. Other camera is a 5d3. Love the M3, for its excellent photo quality. When people complain about RAW quality, we are talking about Adobe rendering, not about Canon. Out out camera jpgs are perfectly usable, just use the neutral picture style with increased contrast, sharpness and saturation as a default setting. Same for Lightroom, for best results make an import preset with camera neutral profile in the calibration tab, avoiding the adobe colors.
The M3 with 22mm is a great aps-c compact for everyday use, that can be carried on your belt in a lowepro case.

I am a Sony A6000 shooter & will be really honest. This is quite stunningly bad image quality here. The A6000 with the 16-50 PZ kit lens can perform better.

I am inclined to believe that this has something to do with a bad lens? Especially considering that most folks who flock to the EOS-M system, do it for their Lens Quality alone. There is not much else to be offered by this system (Which competitors don't offer) apart from Sharp, Competitively Priced Lenses.

A camera is a tool, and that’s what we want it to be. You must learn how to use a tool. If you want sharper jpegs, why don’t you change the default setting in the camera? The M3 is also a very small and light camera, more prone to shutter and handling shake than a heavy DSLR.

I never use ACR or Photoshop for anything but restitution, because I don’t like the output. To me, there’s no evidence in these ACR corrected sample shots. I process Canon raw in DDP and finish jpegs in NX2 – not a perfect work flow, but for me the best available.

I find both the 11-22 and 18-55 to be excellent lenses, and the IS is needed in most cases. The 22 mm lens have no IS, and must be used with much more care than the others.

Let us thank the wonderful staff of DPR for pointing out that this camera sorely needs to shoot RAW and will exact from your patience a lot of blood, sweat and tears of painful post processing before you can say the image is remotely presentable.

Thank you also for the before-and-after, side-by -side shots showing the "out of camera JPEGs" and the "processed from RAW" final image.

You can really count on the this new Canon to make it harder than ever for anyone to get any decent out-of-camera JPEGs.

The great virtue of this camera is that it will teach you patience, long-suffering, and post processing Zumba.

.

Photos can be quite noisy and smudgy, even at ISO 100.

Why are all the M3 images shown in the M forum & the M3 photo section of Flickr so good & these so very poor? Bab

Either one of two things happened here . . . something is either wrong with how these images were taken/processed -OR- this camera produces some of the worst images I've seen in a very long time.

RAW = SLAVERY!

We are many, many years down the path of digital imaging science and a camera like this M3 should be able to produce awesome jpgs without human intervention—RAW should be a distant memory by now.

So why does DPReview shoot in RAW? Why the necessity of all this post processing? Shouldn't part of the money we pay for a camera go to better image processing?

It is time for the camera makers to step up their game and give us photos that are gorgeous straight from the camera so we don't have to waste hours fixing their shortcomings in post.

One of the biggest appeals of EOS M system is ability to take EF and EF-S lenses.
Sadly, the gallery is not showing the true potential of IQ that M3 can produce using L lenses. The amendment to the gallery in that respect would be appreciated.

Who ever took these photos did a wonderful job! Love the style and editing. I agree that they seem soft, could just be a bad lens copy? Who knows. Seems like a great little camera though! Now I'll have to decide between this and the G7X! Keep up the great work DPR!! :D

These are AWESOME!
I'm going to order my Canon EOS M3 Today!

No, third time is not a charm for Canon. Good progress nevertheless.

I liked this little bugger despite being uncomfortably small with quirky menus. It does very good job with the 22mm lens in good light, excellent colors, good resolution, not that great AF. The kit and telephoto zooms aren't anything to write home about. But then Sony does even worse.

The drawback of the Canon sensors (and this one is no exception) is the noticeably worse high ISO noise and dynamic range compared to its peers. The OOC jpegs are also too mushy for landscapes, but the RAW file have all the resolution necessary.

When Canon drops the body price to about $400 the camera will be able to compete with other similar cameras. But at this time it's just overpriced and competition presents better value.

I think the original M does better than this, if this is representative at all of this camera.

Remember....Canon likes to milk the consumer with little grades hoping every buyer has at least 4 camera bodies within 3 years. Convincing the consumer their upgrades were needed.

That is doesn't have an EVF is mind boggling.

It's still a half-a-- effort at a mirror-less. Carefully making sure it doesn't threaten DSLR sales, just like Nikon.

These are the worst pictures I've seen from any MILC ever from any company, even worse than m4/3. They are extremely soft, even if they are JPEG's, there should be SOME detail in them. Just look any ANY pictures with tree leaves in them. Even a Canon G15 P&S can take better pictures than this. Canon should be ashamed of themselves for trying to sell a camera like this, for any price. It seems like they are not serious about getting into the MILC market IMO. I own an old Olympus ZX-2 I picked up for half the price that takes better/sharper pictures than this. My old Sony 5T really puts it to shame.

The new lens mount from Canon... the "Ho-Hum" or just H.

Canon... *meh*

Canon M3H

.

We're these taken by Ken Rockwell? I don't know anyone else who would use a camera like this and test it's quality by shooting jpegs.

a few things:

- images converted by ACR, look pretty bad. did the reviewer move the sharpness slider down from ACR default of 25? I load them up without touching a slider and they .. look better.

why are none of the ones that are "tweaked" include the raw files?

- EXIF or whatever you are using for determine lens is messed up.

I would love to have #1's raw .. seriously +.85EV, +60 shadow and no color NR? okay...

#6 is nice, raw please.

#9 isn't bad .. raw please. CR = 0, LNR >0 .. is weird.

#20 you missed focus.

#42 .. manually focused? (and missed)

what's with using lumanance NR? it should be unnecessary, especially since you didn't apply any color NR

I think the ONLY lens used was the 18-55? actually used the 11-22 and the 22mm would be cool.

I'm not sure how "real world these are" .. there's a TON of things wrong with the M3, it's a crappy release from Canon - and even with that, it can shoot miles better than this.

images from fuji look better. these are dull imho.

The green tint in the borders is too much visible. The colors are too much like that other brand.

"No geometrical, sharpness or major noise-reduction adjustments were made."

no sharpness is a bit weird.

How exactly does one go about shooting at 30mm, 35mm and 55mm with an 11-22mm lens?