I've now watched about 4-5 videos on the R3. My main takeaways are that there are really no complaints and Eye-Controlled AF appears to be a very legitimate tool. As no one could test RAW files, we do not know much about actual performance, things like DR, noise, high ISO noise, but the jpegs do look good. Vanessa Joy (EOL-wedding photographer) did indicate she'd likely stay with the R5 for ceremonies but switch to the R3 for receptions (better performance in low light), which is saying something as this camera really seems aimed at sports photographers.

But, usually people find nitpicks and go to town on them. All the reviews I watched/read seem genuinely impressed. That really indicates to me that this is a very good all around camera. Several defended the 24 MP.

But the eye-controlled AF. "Game changer" is a cliché, but here it may not be. The AF of the R5 has already changed how I shoot. The R3, looks to be a slight improvement on that intelligent point selection/Animal/People eye AF point selection, but to have the AF point accurately track your eye as it moves around the scene, then go to intelligent point selection/eye AF on the subject you are look at, stay on that subject as long as you are pressing AF-on or halfway down on the shutter, and usually critical people are loving it right out of the gate? Wow, that would again change how I shoot. Make taking photos quicker and easier, especially for sports photographers, but I would use it. I am impressed. I hope that trickles down to the R5 II, but I could also see that as a feature reserved for the R3/R1.