[Guest]

The Canon EOS M3 does have better AF than the M, but is not as fast as the quickest Sony/Fuji/Olympus models. The AF in video is unusually well implemented, with smooth, natural transitions.

If you find yourself to be a shadow puller (never was one myself) you might notice the DR in the dark end is less than for instance Sony Exmor sensors, but if you are no shadow puller, the IQ is pretty good (was already pretty good in the original M, and M2).

The external EVF is of good quality, but makes the package more expensive. The 18-55mm STM standard zoom is pretty ok. The AF accuracy of most EF mount lenses is good, the AF speed too (much better than on Sony (F)E with AF capable adapter).

Pretty off topic, all this, though

 Thanks for the detailed answer. May I ask how you know all this? Here in Germany the M3 has not been released yet.

[Brightcolours]

From people reporting on them. The M I have laying around, also the 18-55mm STM. And an EOS adapter.

[Klaus]

The EOS M3 will be here soon ... 

Will test all available M lenses.

[Guest]

Klaus, have you seem the (Imatest) based review at Ephotozone?

 

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/carl-z...view-24059

 

Their sample appears to be very even wide open at 70mm.

 

Now I don't think they are hopeless, and I *know* you aren't, so that leaves a combination of two things:

 

Terrible QC at Sony (and perhaps a design that gets out of tune easily) combined with incompetence at Sony Australia.

[stoppingdown]

I don't know about Sony Australia, but the "terrible QC" - that is, wild sample variance - explains very well the reason for which this lens is such a love/hate thing. There are many good reviews around, but also many bad reviews, and PZ's one is not the first one. It's probably the first one to have spotted the problem in numbers.

 

Explanations about this lack of QC? I can speak for my experience, but: marketing. At the end of 2013 I was evaluating a mirrorless system and the thing boiled down to Sony vs Fuji. It was really a close call, but one of the thing that made me pick Sony was the announcement of the 16-70mm: perfect range for my needs, definitely better than the 16-55mm offered by Fuji, and even though you can't evaluate a lens at announcement time, "it couldn't be bad" because of the Zeiss badge. 

 

In the end, I got a decent copy of the SEL-1670, even though I'm not totally ok. But, in the end, I'm also ok with the Sony pick, for a number of other reasons (however, I still think Fuji is an excellent system and when I have to advice a friend I suggest to evaluate both Sony and Fuji). 

 

If my personal experience is shared by others, with this strategy Sony got a lot of whiners, sure, but also a number of customers.

[stoppingdown]

Forgot a final sentence: it's better more whining customers, than less customers, I suppose.

[Klaus]

Well, it's all in the review. We didn't believe the results either and gave them two fair chances to correct this.

Now they have to live with the consequences. 

[Guest]

It's a special zoom designed for portrait photographers 

 

Or that's why Sony has high pixel density sensors, so you can crop away the edge 

[Guest]

M4/3 does not have the low light performace required for my stock photogprahy, so it is no option altogether.

There is not much in it really. E.g. the 7D Mark II performs about 1/3 of a stop better than current M4/3 cams in terms of ISO noise (according to DXO).

[borisbg]

It looks like Sony relies on their cool looking cameras to attract customers rather than high quality results.