Comparing the R3 vs 1DX III?

R5?

Tony cracks me up. Reviewers that actually had the R3 in hand took a few issues in the comments. But, yeah, FPS is always an "up too" number. Is his counting of shots on screen of another photographer accurate? Maybe, maybe at least in the ballpark, but what cracks me up is then he compares it to cameras where he had in hand and says one was better than the other. Tell me that when you have two cameras side by side in the same conditions. But, fps is always "up to." And if limited by the same thing (AF speed, moving focus elements), two cameras may end up with similar values.

As for R3 vs 1DX III. Similar to you, I used the 1DXIII for a week before buying the R5. I would expect, there are more similarities than differences. The 1DXIII could be treated as MILC and have 20 fps by using Liveview. If you think about it like that, the differences really are getting to use the EVF all the time, "up to" 20 fps and "up to" 30 fps, 4 more MPs, the RF mount, the BSI sensor of the R3, ~$500 price difference, faster mechanical shutter for the 1DX III, size weight differences, and the new features like eye controlled AF/eye detect AF, etc.

As much as I loved the 1DX III (and would consider picking one up at the right price), just on paper, I'd be leaning toward the R3. Personally, I'd wait for hands on tests/reviews with production models and to test it out myself.

But, both are amazing cameras that will be amazing tools. I believe we are reaching a point where all high end cameras will be exceptionally good. Selecting between them will be harder and harder, but in the end, you will have a great tool in your hands regardless.