What is an M3 still good for?

If anyone prefers manual focus lenses and is on a budget, you might look at this model. Working copies can go for under $150 on eBay and if you ignore the autofocus system (which is terrible) you might like the results. Here are some of examples from a blooming pear tree shot with the lens set to manual focus:

I think that to say the M3 AF is terrible is a bit of a hyperbole. The AF is quite accurate - just slow.

For most static shots, or even slow moving action, the AF is perfectly adequate. The general speed and responsiveness (eg. 3 shot AEB) of the camera is slow.

The actual IQ I found was quite good. Sometimes the colours were a bit off and needed some adjustment in post, but the camera is quite capable of producing very good images.

If you said that the camera was terrible for fast action, birding etc, I would certainly agree with you, but for many people taking holiday snaps, or general family shots, there is not much wrong with it.

Colin

I still have my original M (along with an M6 and M6II). The AF is fine. It's not lightning fast, like the M6II, or as fast as the M6, but it's more than adequate for most uses, including portraits and landscapes. It copes perfectly well with the kind of shots you posted. I used the camera extensively for nearly four years, before getting the M6, and never used manual focus. I don't recall reading that the AF on the M3 is worse than on the M, in fact quite the opposite. So I'm sure the M3's AF will cope just fine with most subjects, though probably not BIF or fast sports. Having said all that, I'm pretty sure that you can get an M6 or M5 in good condition for about $250. In fact, you can get it new on Amazon bundled with the 15-45 for $450. I would say it's definitely worth paying an extra $100 for the M6 over the M3, and worth paying an extra $200 to get a new M6 ($450 - $100 for the lens), unless money is really very tight. All the improvements in the M6 over the M3 add up to far more than $100 worth.

AF is terrible - pure BS

Alastair Norcross wrote:

It's not lightning fast, like the M6II, or as fast as the M6, but it's more than adequate for most uses, including portraits and landscapes. It copes perfectly well with the kind of shots you posted.

Actually it didn't cope well at all. With a bit of a breeze the AF couldn't keep up with the movement of the flowers and branches — which led to my comment. I agree it should be fine for objects that are truly static and in other respects is a very nice camera.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

AF is terrible - pure BS

If a camera can't focus on a subject that is moving back and forth by only inches how would you describe the AF?

Microprism wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

AF is terrible - pure BS

If a camera can't focus on a subject that is moving back and forth by only inches how would you describe the AF?

I would describe the person operating the camera as 'inept'.

Microprism wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

It's not lightning fast, like the M6II, or as fast as the M6, but it's more than adequate for most uses, including portraits and landscapes. It copes perfectly well with the kind of shots you posted.

Actually it didn't cope well at all. With a bit of a breeze the AF couldn't keep up with the movement of the flowers and branches — which led to my comment. I agree it should be fine for objects that are truly static and in other respects is a very nice camera.

That's weird. My M copes with that kind of situation well. Were you in servo using single point, or all points? Perhaps the M3 AF is not as good as the original M (after firmware update). I have seen people say that the M3 is the worst of the M line, but I've never tried one, so I don't know.

We can disagree and still be civil.

Randy

fstopx2 wrote:

Whats it good for?

Selling it and putting the money into a newer M.

I had the M, M3 and M5. I would say the M3 is marginally better than the original M but not by much. The M3 had difficulty with more EF/EFS lenses and situations than the original M. I had some lenses the M3 would not focus at all. It was only a marginal improvement over the original M IMHO.

Both the original M and the M3 take very nice pictures but they are hardly fast.

This supports my original point that the M3 is quite a nice camera for manual lenses. It has one dial less than the M6, but most manual lenses have an aperture ring so the control ring can be dedicated to shutter speeds. AF performance is irrelevant with a MF lens attached. The image quality output of the camera is not much different than the later M5 and M6 (or maybe the M which I never had).

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Microprism wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

It's not lightning fast, like the M6II, or as fast as the M6, but it's more than adequate for most uses, including portraits and landscapes. It copes perfectly well with the kind of shots you posted.

Actually it didn't cope well at all. With a bit of a breeze the AF couldn't keep up with the movement of the flowers and branches — which led to my comment. I agree it should be fine for objects that are truly static and in other respects is a very nice camera.

That's weird. My M copes with that kind of situation well. Were you in servo using single point, or all points? Perhaps the M3 AF is not as good as the original M (after firmware update). I have seen people say that the M3 is the worst of the M line, but I've never tried one, so I don't know.

Thanks for the thoughts on this. I used 1 point AF in One Shot not Servo mode. Maybe Servo would have made a difference? The tree is near where I live and I had taken photos with an M6 the day before without any issues under the same conditions. Anyway, the M3 worked so well in manual focus mode that I thought to mention it if anyone out there is looking for that sort of thing.

plantdoc wrote:

Flowers moving in the Wind can be like fast action focusing plus limited DOF and subject movement and a difficult focus point. For moderate macro pics, the subject needs to be still and so do you. Remember manual AF? Very slow. My M3 was OK for anything but action pics if using a stm lens. Vastly better than manual focusing slr used for 30 years.

Greg

Your points are well-taken. This was the wrong subject for this camera's AF system.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Microprism wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

AF is terrible - pure BS

If a camera can't focus on a subject that is moving back and forth by only inches how would you describe the AF?

I would describe the person operating the camera as 'inept'.

Duly noted.

lilBuddha wrote:

Is the AF on the M3 perfect for everything? No. That doesn't make it rubbish.

I regret my choice of words. I agree the AF system has limitations, but it is not "terrible" — at least not for everything. Outside of that, I like the results from this camera.