Canon R3

[Fast Glass]

I'm gonna go out on a limb, but probably because the difference is not big. I have never really seen read noise being very inconsistent with a well lit image, from my limited experience. For lack of better words, if your camera in question well lit noise levels are a 10 and the next model is a 12. The read noise might be 8 and 10 respectively. This obviously is a gross oversimplification and doesn't translate well in real life. I don't think it would be a 5 and a 10, if you know what I mean. In this instance.

Now I'm not talking about cameras with maybe radically different sensors or dramatically different generations. I would expect to see more inconsistencies with well lit noise and read noise when comparing different cameras. But just seeing how close the 1Dx III vs the 3R is in well lit noise examples I doubt the difference would be huge. But I would guess you would start revealing more differences between the two.

Maybe that is something Bryan could do and one up his already outstanding reviews!

[Kayaker72]

Then there is one thing that myself would love to see on tests. Low light vs night time photography. Nobody seems to do good tests with cameras on night time, like shooting astro etc. Those low light tests are quite useless on my point of view. Why nobody goes and testes taking real low light images, milky way etc.

As you know, Clarkvision is still a great resource, but has not kept up with current cameras. Then I tend to use photonstophotos.net for read noise, as that should cover the key difference between a well lit subject and a poorly lit subject. The first link were to cameras I've owned, this link is more relevant to you as I think you have shot the 6D and now R6. As I recall, you provided a link awhile ago where the thought was as you drop below 1 Log DN unit, Read Noise would not be much of a factor even for low light photography. You can see the current sensors dancing around that value.

And I agree. There has been a shift, most noise tests are well lit. Two to three sensor generations ago, these tests could see a difference in camera bodies even with well lit subjects because the read noise was higher than today. Now, read noise is much lower, pretty much for all cameras, so these well lit tests are mostly observing shot noise at increasing ISO, which is the same for any image. So, it is no surprise that when you normalize all factors, you tend to see very similar results. This tells you most cameras today are very capable for most types of photography, but as you get into specific types of photography that diverge from their test conditions, it can matter. For example, a very low signal to noise ratio, you can still see the effects of read noise.

[Fast Glass]

So I take this with a grain of salt as I didn't feel like it was very realistic how they were using the cameras. I do feel the R3 would perform considerably better if they were to shoot real sports with lenses you'd actually find yourself using like a 70-200mm f/2.8 or a 300 or 400mm f/2.8.

I just don't feel an 85mm f/1.2, at very close distances, provides very meaningful testing data. A more realistic portraiture situation would have been more valuable in my opinion.

The birding one definitely is more realistic, and it did seem to highlight the behavior of the Sony vs the Canon. But I feel like that would easily be fixed in a firmware update rather than the camera being incapable of focusing. The R3 struggled a bit in some situations. But it does highlight some of my struggles with the R5, just like Tony and Chelsea's review it's not always consistent and when you shoot a wedding that can mean missing critically important shots.

Ultimately it does seem to outperform the R5 by a significant margin. But the A1 is performing REALLY REALLY well also and I feel like a more in depth comparison is needed in order to draw a definitive conclusion. But the A1 still seems to stand out as the ultimate camera right now, as much as I hate to say it. It is an extremely solid performer not just in the AF department but solid noise performance, solid dynamic range, class leading resolution, good video functionality and in a professional package at a competitive price. For a pro body anyway. Canon's R3 is just not really competing with it at the moment unless it can show us an improvement in AF and keeper rate to the A1.

R3 looks like a great body, but I seems like it has it's work cut out to compare to the A1.