-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Full official M3 specifications.
- Thread starter PhotoKhan
- Start date
- No In-camera Raw processing.
- No sRaw, mRaw
- No wireless flash control
- No Time Lapse
- No Panorama
- No Intervalometer
- No 4:2:2 Video Codec
- No 4K Video
- No 60fps video or 120fps at 1080P
- No Digital Zoom for Video
Thanks for the link.
PhotoKhan
Forum Pro
Ah, how different requests we all have (...can they ever be right?... ;-) )
Myself, I am only pending on a check if the mini-USB is fully enabled (...or just "AV-out" capable like the EOSM and M2...) because my only other critical request - the tiltable screen - is already gloriously featured.
...now, where did I put my piggy bank...
PK
Well I am scratching my head on how and why a Smartphone have some of these features in the default Camera App but a $700 Enthusiast DEDICATED CAMERA like the M3 still lacks.
Yes I like the articulated screen, but the M3 continues to be crippled compared to other Mirror-less cameras and even Phones.
And NO built in EVF. Although it certainly is big enough to have one. And still only 4 native lenses.
770€ for a kit + 250 for an EXTERNAL bulky EVF + 89.99 (probably) for a spare battery (times 2). They must be nuts. What a disappointment.
Oh, it does have focus peaking, that makes up for everything. Not.
PhotoKhan
Forum Pro
This a very valid but ultimately "exteriror", I would say almost "tedolfic" (from our resident and most-beloved havoc-user), perspective.
For many, many of us the driving factor for considering the "M" line is its seamless and expansive integration into the Canon system.
To this extent, we get all giddy about what is thrown our way and, short from major frustrations like those the original M brought along, we only care if particular personal needs have been catered for in a new model and about how much Canon is going to ask for it.
I am 100% certain that there are "better" mirroless systems out there and smartphones that can do what the Ms can't.
I am 101% sure that their users are getting great things from those devices...Heck, even myself, I would be using an Sony A7II right now, accepting the slightly less seamless lens integration with my Canon system, if it was not for the fact that I would have to let go the most "ignorance-based-berated" but actually quite awesome Speedlite system, integrated with the also amazing PW Control TL system.
However, if I could telepathically-transmit to others the complete peace of mind and sheer bliss of a my multi-items but worry-free, absolute photography-focused experience, I'll bet a bunch of other solutions users would be banging a Canon store door faster than they could say "EOS".
PK
--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.humbertoborgesfotografia.com/
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------
Last edited:
Besides that being a useless remark, ever looked at A6000, GM5, GX7, etc.? Maybe you should.
M
meland
Guest
Are you just being difficult or what. I don't care how it would fit or not. If Canon was serious about mirrorless they would have made it fit. Like all the other cameras I pointed you to.
The point of mirrorless cams is being small. Adding a clip on evf makes it bulky and defeats the whole point of being small. Might just as well get a dslr. Oh wait, that's exactly what Canon wants!
Last edited:
M
meland
Guest
I can see you don't care if it would fit or not. And I'm not arguing if you feel all mirrorless cameras should be small. And fine if you dislike clip on EVFs.
What I am querying is your definitive statement "........ it certainly is big enough to have one." Now you simply do not know that do you?
Ok as you seem to have way too much free time please go ahead and compare the physical dimensions of the cameras I mentioned (which all have an evf) to the physical dimensions of the m3. Draw your own conclusions whether or not it is technocally possible to cram an evf in it or not, but I'm not gonna waste any more time on your silly argument.
PhotoKhan
Forum Pro
You better... ;-)
...It seems you fell for his continued tactic.
He will challenge a poster who was not careful enough with the way he worded a proposed idea or possibility with "how do you know that? Did you designed it or work there?" - as if, in true forum spirit, most of what we post around here are not opinions or conjunctures anyway - and then takes you on an argumentative spiral-of-death.
This provocative compulsive-obnoxious repeated stance, added to the lack of any photography to show for in a photography forum and the, seemingly, lack of any discernible sense of humor added up to the 3 criteria I use to put a poster on "Ignore".
I advise you to do the same and only have to watch the show when embedded in other poster's replies, like I did, in this case.
...oh, and, by the way...they obviously and totally could have included in-camera EVF if they wanted to...but I guess you'll have to bring out the Play-Doh (Duh) to prove it... ;-)
PK
--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.humbertoborgesfotografia.com/
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------
Last edited:
M
meland
Guest
Well I do seem to have offended you greatly in some way PK. Not sure why? Have we had a run in at some stage that still rankles with you? Anyway I have no problem with you - and indeed quite enjoy many of your photos, especially the Japanese stuff as I have spent quite a bit of time there.
Now the thing is some here make definitive statements which simply aren't true but if they engaged brain before letting their fingers near the keyboard perhaps they would realise that. :-D
Last edited:
William Ing
Leading Member
AFAIC, this debate re built-in EVF vs. clip on accessory EVF is quite academic. Look, if you've already considered and rejected the possibilty of outfiitting your EOS M3 with a Clearviewer, then I respect your choice and have nothing more to say to you on that score. But if you've never given much thought to a CV, then consider first the PROS:
a) lightweight, very compact in folded storage position, adds very little to camera's profile.
b) unlike a clip on EVF, deployment of CV frees up hot shoe for use with strobes or microphones or remote wireless releases.
c) CV allows full, 1O0% view of LCD info, including all readout data and focus confirmation, as opposed to limited info from a shoe-mounted, clip-on optical VF. Any single focal length OVF is of course useless for zoom lenses and long teles.
d) in conjunction with M3's improved AF and new focus peaking, I'd expect the new model + CV magnification to be a greatly enhanced platform for eyelevel composition and shooting, esp.for use with telephotos and MF legacy lenses.
e) low tech solution deploys almost instantly, folds away for quick storage, and is relatively low cost, esp. when compared with Canon's accessory EVF.
CONS:
a) the most frequently voiced objection I hear is that a CV, lacking the fully enclosed optics of a much heavier and cumbersome Hoodman-type viewer, can't ensure against contrast-killing reflections from ambient light, especially outdoors in sunlight. In my experience, this isn't as much of a problem as it might seem. Your head and face, placed close to the LCD screen during eyelevel shooting, help block out a lot of extraneous light on the display. Indoors and at night, a non-issue. For more info about this concern, see <clearviewer.com>
I've shot for years on Clearviewer-outfitted bodies ranging from the Panny LX-7, to the Fuji X-A1, to the Oly XZ-2, to the Canon EOS-M, and state without hesitation that in each case, I have found the CV to be a transformative tool.
prime instinct
Leading Member
- Messages
- 526
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 374
Everyone seems to forgot the elephant in the room - the elephant size focus box on that little LCD screen. Here's hoping the M3 doesn't have tendency to focus on the background like M1 does. Even my K-01 has a smaller focus box than that!
I'm a longtime advocate of the ClearViewer as well. I use them on the original EOS-M and an S95. It is very much a great asset for these cameras. I haven't been on this forum much in a long time, so I'm not sure if it's gained much traction here, but truly it works wonders. If I get an M3, it will get a ClearViewer as well.
William Ing
Leading Member
My suspicion is that most of the numerous posts about the CV that I've put up on threads connected with "viewfinderless" cameras--most of those posts are ignored and quickly forgotten, from what I can tell. I base this statement on how infrequently I find follow up comments or questions about the CV. Really, people are constantly complaining and wringing their hands over why manufacturers of cameras like the Fuji XA-1 and the EOS M seem to have crippled their products by stopping short of offering at least an option for an accessory EVF. Some even resort to more expensive and (for me) heavy and inconvenient focusing aids like Hoodman-type viewers.
It is puzzling to me that helpful information about a sensible, low-cost solution like the Clearviewer--admittedly not perfect and not the answer for everybody--would nevertheless fall on so many deaf ears.
FWIW, that's my take on the whole phenomenon of viewfinderless mirrorless bodies. Guess I must be some kind of eccentric.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum