Canon R3

[DavidEccleston]

It's a good thing it has good high-ISO handling, because it seems Canon is really pushing slow glass in the RF mount. They've got 600 f/11, an 800 f/11, a 100-500L f/4.5-7.1, and now their 100-400 f/4.5-8, the first non-L to work the extenders, so you can have 560 f/11 or 800 f/16!

I mean, I guess they want to have a certain level of buy-in to RF before investing in making high-end glass, but it seems really odd to sell a $6K body with no decent native lenses. I'm barely shooting these days, so I'm not the target market, but surely I'm not the only one confused by the limited RF lens choices. Am I?

[HDNitehawk]

I'm barely shooting these days, so I'm not the target market, but surely I'm not the only one confused by the limited RF lens choices. Am I?

Or availability of the glass they have released. You have to preorder and hope it comes in stock soon.
I think the slow non L glass is a lead up to a cheap consumer version of the R, most likely a crop body.
Keep in mind that they have also released a 100-500mm L (100mm more than the EF 100-499 version), 24 x70mm F/2.8 L with IS, 15-35mm F/2.8 L with IS and a 28-70mm F/2 L. All of these are improvements over the EF lens. The 70-200mm f/2.8 and 100mm f/2.8 macro are at least equivalents to the EF version.


I have been utilizing my EF 35mm F/1.4 II, performance has been great. I don't think it knows it is not an RF lens.
At this point in the game maybe that is the point. People are buying it and utilizing it on their old lenses.

[Fast Glass]

Well, I have not went through all the videos. But just looking at some of the examples the digital shutter is not quite as good as the A1. But more significant that I would have thought.

There are other things like the buffer not being as good and not uploading as fast. Somewhat less important, but still definitely gives the 1Dx III some advantages making it still worthwhile.

Makes me now really need to see the IQ, because if it is say only modestly better. The RF mount might be the biggest reason to switch.

Still trying to sort all the specs in my mind and how it all fits. It seems like to me at the moment it wipes the floor in most ways, arguably the most important ways. But in certain ways Canon still left room for the 1Dx III to still be relevant. Sort of.

[Kayaker72]

surely I'm not the only one confused by the limited RF lens choices. Am I?

Despite now having 23 RF lenses to date (25 including TCs), I still consider the RF lenses a work in progress, which is part of the reason I am still on the RF lens sidelines. So, I agree, it seems odd, but you can start to see it's final form. For example, Canon has worked hard, especially in the last year or two, to provide more affordable/gateway RF lenses (zooms: 24-105 f/4-7.1, 24-240 f/4-6.3, and 100-400; primes: 16 f/2.8, 50 1.8, the 35 f/1.8 and 85 f/2 are a slight next level up, and 600/800 f/11). But, not so long ago, Canon was being accused of only having high end lenses (28-70 f/2, 50 and 85 f/1.4 lenses, f/2.8 and f/4 zoom trinities, 100-500, 400 f/2.8, and 600 f/4).

So, I suspect the entry level is getting pretty complete (may 1-2 more), but hopefully there are about 10 more "L" lenses to come such as a 14/24/35/135/200/300/500/800 mm primes and some creative zooms.

[Kayaker72]

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.

[Fast Glass]

So after looking at multiple examples of fast action, the jello affect really bugs me. Maybe it's just not something that would matter much for me in the real world, but I think renting it will be the only way for me to for sure put this to rest. Rest the camera is better in almost every way to the 1Dx III.

[Kayaker72]

So after looking at multiple examples of fast action, the jello affect really bugs me. Maybe it's just not something that would matter much for me in the real world, but I think renting it will be the only way for me to for sure put this to rest. Rest the camera is better in almost every way to the 1Dx III.

I saw comments where one photographer really not pleased. Electronic rolling shutters will always have some sort of issue. So, until there is a global shutter, it is to be expected. That photographer didn't care for the A1 either. But, the R3 still has 12 fps with mechanical shutter. One area where 1DXIII is better. For my needs, either is still more than enough. For those that want 30 fps, the good news is 14 bit on the R3 (there is a reduction with the A1), the not so good news is still a rolling shutter, and it is between the A1 and R3 for best in market.

[Fast Glass]

Agreed, having 14bit is very nice at 30fps.

I really want to know how it affects birds in flight, ice skaters, events ect. I'll probably do some sports too. And while not my main stay. There is a still a choice to be made. 1Dx III or R3. I was so impressed with the 1Dx III I wouldn’t feel bad if I had to "Settle" for that because of some features.

Also, while I don't shoot continuously. I know I fill up my 1D III very easily doing stuff like that. I use a lot of little bursts and lose a lot of shots if I am not working around that. My question is will the 130/150 buffer depth of the R3 be enough? Depends on how fast it can unload. But looking at it. It does that a hot minute to do so. Again, it's one of those things I really need to just try for myself.

One of the big things I like is IBIS, almost more than anything else. So that is a pretty nice thing to have. Having a 50mm f/1.2 or a Sigma 35mm f/1.2 and IBIS. Thats pretty sick low light capability in combination with will controlled noise.

[Kayaker72]

Agreed, having 14bit is very nice at 30fps.

I really want to know how it affects birds in flight, ice skaters, events ect. I'll probably do some sports too. And while not my main stay. There is a still a choice to be made. 1Dx III or R3. I was so impressed with the 1Dx III I wouldn’t feel bad if I had to "Settle" for that because of some features.

Also, while I don't shoot continuously. I know I fill up my 1D III very easily doing stuff like that. I use a lot of little bursts and lose a lot of shots if I am not working around that. My question is will the 130/150 buffer depth of the R3 be enough? Depends on how fast it can unload. But looking at it. It does that a hot minute to do so. Again, it's one of those things I really need to just try for myself.

One of the big things I like is IBIS, almost more than anything else. So that is a pretty nice thing to have. Having a 50mm f/1.2 or a Sigma 35mm f/1.2 and IBIS. Thats pretty sick low light capability in combination with will controlled noise.

I haven't noticed any issues with BIF even with the R5, which has a much slower read rate than the R3.

537A5256 by kayaker72, on Flickr

As for IBIS with non-IS glass (Sigma 50A, 24-70 II, etc). Yep...it is nice.

[Fast Glass]

Well that is good to know, if there is any distortion it is too slight for me to notice.