If your basis for comparison is highly compressed footage uploaded to YouTube with unknown processing done to it, you aren't likely to see much of a difference even if you added a $15,000
Inspire 2 setup to that list.
To evaluate image quality properly, you need raw image files or video on your computer and a raw converter that does the files justice. There you can properly compare them side by side without compression, as well as evaluate the processing leeway, which is a large part of the appeal that you won't see in that sort of YouTube comparison.
That being said, if your end usage is always going to be JPEG stills or unedited 8bit video footage to share with people on YouTube or similar platforms, even an
Air 2S is probably overkill.
The
M3 also does not have a zoom lens, though I can see how DJI's marketing can be confusing. It has two separate fixed focal length lenses (or "primes" if you are familiar with that term), each of which can be cropped up to 4X with extreme quality losses. You can achieve the exact same effect in post with any drone or camera if you wish.
Anyway I think it goes without saying, but if your particular usage will not benefit from the
M3's improvements, save your money. The
Air 2S is particularly good value if you don't need an adjustable aperture or the larger sensor. There are obviously other things too like upgraded obstacle avoidance but this discussion seems to be focused on image quality.