obsolete but still...lovely

Greeting everyone!

Got the camera for 250$ in brand new condition.

This my personal experience...in summary

Pro:

- Cheap...now!

- The most solid build quality M body (only second to original M)

- Decent AF (fast and accurate for slow and static subjects)

- Very nice image quality (with DxO RAW processing and sharp native lens like.....11-22 or 32)

- CHDK port in real development and current build is quite usable.

Cons:

- The AF is bad (for fast moving subject).

- Terrible video quality (Heavy compression)

- Limited RAW burst

- Not weather seal

-> Overall, it's fine camera, obsolete but still...lovely!

Here are some of my photos. Thank you!

Hello...

Beautiful photographs - thank you for sharing.

KoolKool wrote:

Greeting everyone!

Got the camera for 250$ in brand new condition.

This my personal experience...in summary

Pro:

- Cheap...now!

- The most solid build quality M body (only second to original M)

- Decent AF (fast and accurate for slow and static subjects)

- Very nice image quality (with DxO RAW processing and sharp native lens like.....11-22 or 32)

- CHDK port in real development and current build is quite usable.

Cons:

- The AF is bad (for fast moving subject).

- Terrible video quality (Heavy compression)

- Limited RAW burst

- Not weather seal

-> Overall, it's fine camera, obsolete but still...lovely!

Here are some of my photos. Thank you!

Good review.

Did you experience any banding? (here ) This was supposed to be a problem with the sensor the M3 uses.

Nice photos to a good review -- Well done.

KoolKool wrote:

Jethro B-UK wrote:

Good review.

Did you experience any banding? (here ) This was supposed to be a problem with the sensor the M3 uses.

Nice photos to a good review -- Well done.

thanks!

hmm....i don't notice any banding during my shooting experience... or during RAW processing, it's DxO Deep Prime capable of reducing it to minimum.

Limited DR is a bigger problem in my opinion.

KoolKool wrote:

Greeting everyone!

Got the camera for 250$ in brand new condition.

This my personal experience...in summary

Pro:

- Cheap...now!

- The most solid build quality M body (only second to original M)

- Decent AF (fast and accurate for slow and static subjects)

- Very nice image quality (with DxO RAW processing and sharp native lens like.....11-22 or 32)

- CHDK port in real development and current build is quite usable.

Cons:

- The AF is bad (for fast moving subject).

- Terrible video quality (Heavy compression)

- Limited RAW burst

- Not weather seal

-> Overall, it's fine camera, obsolete but still...lovely!

Here are some of my photos. Thank you!

I just love those colors, EOS RP is the only other high res Canon mirrorless with colors close to M3.

The M3, despite its short failings, was very useful for its time in my use.

Some thoughts, no order in retrospect.

In all modes (PASM) the camera often chooses a shutter too slow to prevent subject blur; it's often hard to detect this because autofocus struggles with moving subjects for to be relevant, however, when you do hit the target, your shutter does need to match the subject. You can get some bang on shots if you baby the AF, some luck, and, you set your shutter a touch higher / match it for your subject.

Low light on the M3 is no joke. I noted going to the M5 that I lost a bit. PhotonsToPhotons confirms the low light score of the M3 is higher than the M5/6/50/100/200. It's true in viewing. It isn't until the M6 II that the M3 gets surpassed in low light by another M. The M3 is fierce in low light when paired with say a 22 pancake or other fast lens.

In the right hands and shooting stationary subjects, it's very capable.

RLight wrote:

The M3, despite its short failings, was very useful for its time in my use.

Some thoughts, no order in retrospect.

In all modes (PASM) the camera often chooses a shutter too slow to prevent subject blur; it's often hard to detect this because autofocus struggles with moving subjects for to be relevant, however, when you do hit the target, your shutter does need to match the subject. You can get some bang on shots if you baby the AF, some luck, and, you set your shutter a touch higher / match it for your subject.

Low light on the M3 is no joke. I noted going to the M5 that I lost a bit. PhotonsToPhotons confirms the low light score of the M3 is higher than the M5/6/50/100/200. It's true in viewing. It isn't until the M6 II that the M3 gets surpassed in low light by another M. The M3 is fierce in low light when paired with say a 22 pancake or other fast lens.

In the right hands and shooting stationary subjects, it's very capable.

I think I have never used auto ISO with M3, though I might be mistaken.

KoolKool wrote:

KEG wrote:

Limited DR is a bigger problem in my opinion.

Is the sensor made by Sony? i think M3 sensor is as good as a6300, a6500, and the RAW file is 14bit compare to 11bit in Sony, you actually can do shadow lifting and highlight recovery well.

You have much greater latitude of highlight and shadow recovery with M6/M50/M200/M50ii/M6ii althought I must admit I have never encountered the 32 MP sensor but I have 5 years experience with the M6 one and 7 with the other.

i used to own an a6500, compare both two's raw files, personally, i prefer Canon.

RLight wrote:

Low light on the M3 is no joke. I noted going to the M5 that I lost a bit. PhotonsToPhotons confirms the low light score of the M3 is higher than the M5/6/50/100/200. It's true in viewing. It isn't until the M6 II that the M3 gets surpassed in low light by another M. The M3 is fierce in low light when paired with say a 22 pancake or other fast lens.

i guess the low light quality minor reduction in newer models must be caused by Dual Pixel AF design? But i think the trade off is not bad.

KoolKool wrote:

KEG wrote:

Limited DR is a bigger problem in my opinion.

Is the sensor made by Sony? i think M3 sensor is as good as a6300, a6500, and the RAW file is 14bit compare to 11bit in Sony, you actually can do shadow lifting and highlight recovery well.

i used to own an a6500, compare both two's raw files, personally, i prefer Canon.

RLight wrote:

Low light on the M3 is no joke. I noted going to the M5 that I lost a bit. PhotonsToPhotons confirms the low light score of the M3 is higher than the M5/6/50/100/200. It's true in viewing. It isn't until the M6 II that the M3 gets surpassed in low light by another M. The M3 is fierce in low light when paired with say a 22 pancake or other fast lens.

i guess the low light quality minor reduction in newer models must be caused by Dual Pixel AF design? But i think the trade off is not bad.

Exactly my thoughts. AF should not be underestimated, but yes, DPAF came with a cost, not a huge one by any means, but a cost nonetheless. Is top-notch AF or top notch ISO more important? It's in the eye of the beholder.

RLight wrote:

KoolKool wrote:

KEG wrote:

Limited DR is a bigger problem in my opinion.

Is the sensor made by Sony? i think M3 sensor is as good as a6300, a6500, and the RAW file is 14bit compare to 11bit in Sony, you actually can do shadow lifting and highlight recovery well.

i used to own an a6500, compare both two's raw files, personally, i prefer Canon.

RLight wrote:

Low light on the M3 is no joke. I noted going to the M5 that I lost a bit. PhotonsToPhotons confirms the low light score of the M3 is higher than the M5/6/50/100/200. It's true in viewing. It isn't until the M6 II that the M3 gets surpassed in low light by another M. The M3 is fierce in low light when paired with say a 22 pancake or other fast lens.

i guess the low light quality minor reduction in newer models must be caused by Dual Pixel AF design? But i think the trade off is not bad.

Exactly my thoughts. AF should not be underestimated, but yes, DPAF came with a cost, not a huge one by any means, but a cost nonetheless. Is top-notch AF or top notch ISO more important? It's in the eye of the beholder.

M6 has better ISO performance than M3.

M3 has nicer colors on the other hand.

Which M6? The original or the mk2?

Jethro B-UK wrote:

Which M6? The original or the mk2?

I have the mk I which kind of falls into the obsolete but lovely category also.

I see.

KEG wrote:

RLight wrote:

KoolKool wrote:

KEG wrote:

Limited DR is a bigger problem in my opinion.

Is the sensor made by Sony? i think M3 sensor is as good as a6300, a6500, and the RAW file is 14bit compare to 11bit in Sony, you actually can do shadow lifting and highlight recovery well.

i used to own an a6500, compare both two's raw files, personally, i prefer Canon.

RLight wrote:

Low light on the M3 is no joke. I noted going to the M5 that I lost a bit. PhotonsToPhotons confirms the low light score of the M3 is higher than the M5/6/50/100/200. It's true in viewing. It isn't until the M6 II that the M3 gets surpassed in low light by another M. The M3 is fierce in low light when paired with say a 22 pancake or other fast lens.

i guess the low light quality minor reduction in newer models must be caused by Dual Pixel AF design? But i think the trade off is not bad.

Exactly my thoughts. AF should not be underestimated, but yes, DPAF came with a cost, not a huge one by any means, but a cost nonetheless. Is top-notch AF or top notch ISO more important? It's in the eye of the beholder.

M6 has better ISO performance than M3.

M3 has nicer colors on the other hand.

The M6 II has better ISO than the M3 (but not the M6 Mark I)

Colors is a debatable subject as it's subjective. Neither the M6 II or M3 are very "traditional" in terms of Canon rendering. The M50 / II / M6 I and M/2 win that battle in my book. It is a trade, colors or ISO performance. I'd prefer both but I've learned that yes, better performance is better performance. I personally struggled with this topic, Canon's shift away from their traditional color rendition over time. What won me over to Canon's new colors? Video content. When comparing video shot on an older Canon to a newer one, the newer has much closer to reality rendition.

You know as I write this, it'd be nice if Canon could give us both; "traditional" colors for stills, "modern" colors for video. The trouble is color is such an intertwined event, WB, CFA, your jpeg engine, they all come into play. If Canon shifts the CFA, they have to shift the WB for example. I'm not sure this can be done, giving us the option of both by toggling a change in a menu that enacts WB and JPEG engine shifts. In fact I'm pretty sure it can't. I bet Canon themselves may have internal arguments on the topic. Wouldn't know, just seems logical based off their historically conservative culture.

BTW, AWB-A and AWB-W, are a form of Canon giving us best do-able option. Which is most useful in video I might add. You'd be wise to shoot video in AWB-W and photos in AWB-A, in my book for example. The Fine Detail Picture Profile is another, also useful I might add in video, and stills.

RLight wrote:

KEG wrote:

RLight wrote:

KoolKool wrote:

KEG wrote:

Limited DR is a bigger problem in my opinion.

Is the sensor made by Sony? i think M3 sensor is as good as a6300, a6500, and the RAW file is 14bit compare to 11bit in Sony, you actually can do shadow lifting and highlight recovery well.

i used to own an a6500, compare both two's raw files, personally, i prefer Canon.

RLight wrote:

Low light on the M3 is no joke. I noted going to the M5 that I lost a bit. PhotonsToPhotons confirms the low light score of the M3 is higher than the M5/6/50/100/200. It's true in viewing. It isn't until the M6 II that the M3 gets surpassed in low light by another M. The M3 is fierce in low light when paired with say a 22 pancake or other fast lens.

i guess the low light quality minor reduction in newer models must be caused by Dual Pixel AF design? But i think the trade off is not bad.

Exactly my thoughts. AF should not be underestimated, but yes, DPAF came with a cost, not a huge one by any means, but a cost nonetheless. Is top-notch AF or top notch ISO more important? It's in the eye of the beholder.

M6 has better ISO performance than M3.

M3 has nicer colors on the other hand.

The M6 II has better ISO than the M3 (but not the M6 Mark I)

Colors is a debatable subject as it's subjective. Neither the M6 II or M3 are very "traditional" in terms of Canon rendering. The M50 / II / M6 I and M/2 win that battle in my book. It is a trade, colors or ISO performance. I'd prefer both but I've learned that yes, better performance is better performance. I personally struggled with this topic, Canon's shift away from their traditional color rendition over time. What won me over to Canon's new colors? Video content. When comparing video shot on an older Canon to a newer one, the newer has much closer to reality rendition.

Of all the Canons I have used EOS R is ultimate winner when it comes to video quality, the 4K videos are sharp without looking overprocessed, my old M50 suffered from being practically unusable in 4K and I think 1080p basically looks meh from all of them.

Is M50 ii better when it comes to video focusing than M50 and how much does the lame 10 image raw buffer hinder people in real life, that is kind the only real downside with M6, the small buffer, I am guessing that the 50 frame buffer of RP/R spoils people.

Does it lock down when clearing the buffer or just slow down?

Or maybe tracking down one of the last M6iis is my only option, 23 sounds better than 10.

You know as I write this, it'd be nice if Canon could give us both; "traditional" colors for stills, "modern" colors for video. The trouble is color is such an intertwined event, WB, CFA, your jpeg engine, they all come into play. If Canon shifts the CFA, they have to shift the WB for example. I'm not sure this can be done, giving us the option of both by toggling a change in a menu that enacts WB and JPEG engine shifts. In fact I'm pretty sure it can't. I bet Canon themselves may have internal arguments on the topic. Wouldn't know, just seems logical based off their historically conservative culture.

KEG wrote:

RLight wrote:

KEG wrote:

RLight wrote:

KoolKool wrote:

KEG wrote:

Limited DR is a bigger problem in my opinion.

Is the sensor made by Sony? i think M3 sensor is as good as a6300, a6500, and the RAW file is 14bit compare to 11bit in Sony, you actually can do shadow lifting and highlight recovery well.

i used to own an a6500, compare both two's raw files, personally, i prefer Canon.

RLight wrote:

Low light on the M3 is no joke. I noted going to the M5 that I lost a bit. PhotonsToPhotons confirms the low light score of the M3 is higher than the M5/6/50/100/200. It's true in viewing. It isn't until the M6 II that the M3 gets surpassed in low light by another M. The M3 is fierce in low light when paired with say a 22 pancake or other fast lens.

i guess the low light quality minor reduction in newer models must be caused by Dual Pixel AF design? But i think the trade off is not bad.

Exactly my thoughts. AF should not be underestimated, but yes, DPAF came with a cost, not a huge one by any means, but a cost nonetheless. Is top-notch AF or top notch ISO more important? It's in the eye of the beholder.

M6 has better ISO performance than M3.

M3 has nicer colors on the other hand.

The M6 II has better ISO than the M3 (but not the M6 Mark I)

Colors is a debatable subject as it's subjective. Neither the M6 II or M3 are very "traditional" in terms of Canon rendering. The M50 / II / M6 I and M/2 win that battle in my book. It is a trade, colors or ISO performance. I'd prefer both but I've learned that yes, better performance is better performance. I personally struggled with this topic, Canon's shift away from their traditional color rendition over time. What won me over to Canon's new colors? Video content. When comparing video shot on an older Canon to a newer one, the newer has much closer to reality rendition.

Of all the Canons I have used EOS R is ultimate winner when it comes to video quality, the 4K videos are sharp without looking overprocessed, my old M50 suffered from being practically unusable in 4K and I think 1080p basically looks meh from all of them.

Is M50 ii better when it comes to video focusing than M50 and how much does the lame 10 image raw buffer hinder people in real life, that is kind the only real downside with M6, the small buffer, I am guessing that the 50 frame buffer of RP/R spoils people.

Does it lock down when clearing the buffer or just slow down?

Or maybe tracking down one of the last M6iis is my only option, 23 sounds better than 10.

The M50 II is incrementally better than the M50. The frame buffer still hurts, 4K is still cropped. AF in video? Not better enough to matter.

The R is better. It's bigger, more expensive. I love my R, but it's a lot bigger. You need an EOS M or PowerShot G to supplement it for "personal" use. It's a piggy Mc. Oink Oink in bulk.

The M6 II is really a step up over the M6 and M50s. Buffer becomes a non-issue if you use a fast UHS-II card ala Sony Tough G. Moreso if you shoot C-RAW on top of it, I do/did on both.

4K video is that much better on the M6 II. ISO handling is a huge step up. It's easily 2/3 stops better in low light vs the aging 80D sensor. 2/3 stops is a lot I might add.

Curiosity, what's your language of choice in development? And, the age ol debate, tabs, or spaces? I use whatever the platform/language demands, but, I prefer consistent spacing regardless of either. So to most languages for that matter.... Saw you're a software Dev in your profile when double checking which M6 you had.

You know as I write this, it'd be nice if Canon could give us both; "traditional" colors for stills, "modern" colors for video. The trouble is color is such an intertwined event, WB, CFA, your jpeg engine, they all come into play. If Canon shifts the CFA, they have to shift the WB for example. I'm not sure this can be done, giving us the option of both by toggling a change in a menu that enacts WB and JPEG engine shifts. In fact I'm pretty sure it can't. I bet Canon themselves may have internal arguments on the topic. Wouldn't know, just seems logical based off their historically conservative culture.

RLight wrote:

KEG wrote:

RLight wrote:

KEG wrote:

RLight wrote:

KoolKool wrote:

KEG wrote:

Limited DR is a bigger problem in my opinion.

Is the sensor made by Sony? i think M3 sensor is as good as a6300, a6500, and the RAW file is 14bit compare to 11bit in Sony, you actually can do shadow lifting and highlight recovery well.

i used to own an a6500, compare both two's raw files, personally, i prefer Canon.

RLight wrote:

Low light on the M3 is no joke. I noted going to the M5 that I lost a bit. PhotonsToPhotons confirms the low light score of the M3 is higher than the M5/6/50/100/200. It's true in viewing. It isn't until the M6 II that the M3 gets surpassed in low light by another M. The M3 is fierce in low light when paired with say a 22 pancake or other fast lens.

i guess the low light quality minor reduction in newer models must be caused by Dual Pixel AF design? But i think the trade off is not bad.

Exactly my thoughts. AF should not be underestimated, but yes, DPAF came with a cost, not a huge one by any means, but a cost nonetheless. Is top-notch AF or top notch ISO more important? It's in the eye of the beholder.

M6 has better ISO performance than M3.

M3 has nicer colors on the other hand.

The M6 II has better ISO than the M3 (but not the M6 Mark I)

Colors is a debatable subject as it's subjective. Neither the M6 II or M3 are very "traditional" in terms of Canon rendering. The M50 / II / M6 I and M/2 win that battle in my book. It is a trade, colors or ISO performance. I'd prefer both but I've learned that yes, better performance is better performance. I personally struggled with this topic, Canon's shift away from their traditional color rendition over time. What won me over to Canon's new colors? Video content. When comparing video shot on an older Canon to a newer one, the newer has much closer to reality rendition.

Of all the Canons I have used EOS R is ultimate winner when it comes to video quality, the 4K videos are sharp without looking overprocessed, my old M50 suffered from being practically unusable in 4K and I think 1080p basically looks meh from all of them.

Is M50 ii better when it comes to video focusing than M50 and how much does the lame 10 image raw buffer hinder people in real life, that is kind the only real downside with M6, the small buffer, I am guessing that the 50 frame buffer of RP/R spoils people.

Does it lock down when clearing the buffer or just slow down?

Or maybe tracking down one of the last M6iis is my only option, 23 sounds better than 10.

The M50 II is incrementally better than the M50. The frame buffer still hurts, 4K is still cropped. AF in video? Not better enough to matter.

The R is better. It's bigger, more expensive. I love my R, but it's a lot bigger. You need an EOS M or PowerShot G to supplement it for "personal" use. It's a piggy Mc. Oink Oink in bulk.

The M6 II is really a step up over the M6 and M50s. Buffer becomes a non-issue if you use a fast UHS-II card ala Sony Tough G. Moreso if you shoot C-RAW on top of it, I do/did on both.

4K video is that much better on the M6 II. ISO handling is a huge step up. It's easily 2/3 stops better in low light vs the aging 80D sensor. 2/3 stops is a lot I might add.

Curiosity, what's your language of choice in development? And, the age ol debate, tabs, or spaces? I use whatever the platform/language demands, but, I prefer consistent spacing regardless of either. So to most languages for that matter.... Saw you're a software Dev in your profile when double checking which M6 you had.

I am a backend/database developer so my working days are split between Visual Studio doing C# and dotnet programming and Management Studio doing T-SQL development.

Also fair bit of C++ also.

But usually I use the whatever tool which fits the task so I have also done extensive java work when it has been needed.

You know as I write this, it'd be nice if Canon could give us both; "traditional" colors for stills, "modern" colors for video. The trouble is color is such an intertwined event, WB, CFA, your jpeg engine, they all come into play. If Canon shifts the CFA, they have to shift the WB for example. I'm not sure this can be done, giving us the option of both by toggling a change in a menu that enacts WB and JPEG engine shifts. In fact I'm pretty sure it can't. I bet Canon themselves may have internal arguments on the topic. Wouldn't know, just seems logical based off their historically conservative culture.

KEG wrote:

KoolKool wrote:

Greeting everyone!

Got the camera for 250$ in brand new condition.

This my personal experience...in summary

Pro:

- Cheap...now!

- The most solid build quality M body (only second to original M)

- Decent AF (fast and accurate for slow and static subjects)

- Very nice image quality (with DxO RAW processing and sharp native lens like.....11-22 or 32)

- CHDK port in real development and current build is quite usable.

Cons:

- The AF is bad (for fast moving subject).

- Terrible video quality (Heavy compression)

- Limited RAW burst

- Not weather seal

-> Overall, it's fine camera, obsolete but still...lovely!

Here are some of my photos. Thank you!

I just love those colors, EOS RP is the only other high res Canon mirrorless with colors close to M3.

these colors are great - the old fab secret sauce like the RP