Canon R3

[Fast Glass]

Another interesting watch, although they don't have a camera in hand. But it does give some food for thought and the one thing to note is that it is not always reaching the rated maximum 30FPS. So it has to be seen what it can do, but honestly this is the same with any camera and also depends if you prioritize in focus shots vs frame rate priority. But he makes a good point that most cameras do a realistic 20fps, or the same as the R5. And with it having probably the same basic AF system. You really have to want other features it offers and not necessarily just the 30fps, but again this is highly variable. It just reinforces why I always rent before buying something this expensive when there isn't a clear cut winner for every application.

Man, I don't remember comparing two pro cameras to be so complicated! I guess that's what happens when you try to fit a 3 series camera in between a 1 and 5 series camera with tech that is in it's infancy. And especially when it varies depending on how you shoot and what you consider acceptable. It gets messy quick.

The more I compare the two the more confused I get on which one really has an advantage overall, and the answer I keep coming to is "It depends".

https://youtu.be/6MEB45-Vnv8

[Kayaker72]

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.

[Fast Glass]

He was very clear to say that those are not the most accurate numbers and was something to consider. Because the faster you go, the more caveats that extreme 30fps has. Because it's really easy to think it will perform as consistently fast as the R5 or 1Dx III with their slower frame rate. But again, he was just giving a perspective about it.

I still find them entertaining enough too watch. Even if i don't agree with everything.

[Fast Glass]

Well, looks like AF and FPS is absolutely amazing. Ok, I can put that issue to rest that it indeed gets you a pretty consistent 30fps even with slower focusing lenses like the RF 85mm f/1.2. Which the EF version is my main stay for portraits right now. That is pretty incredible. Obviously I'm sure when the AF is struggling it will drop, but this is no different with any other camera.

So yeah, never mind Tony. The camera is pretty consistent.

https://youtu.be/mxOJoqtSWB8

[HDNitehawk]

30 fps is a movie camera
There are instances in nature that catching that many fps can help.
However in most instance it will give you multitude of near identical pictures to sort through and figure out which to delete.

[Kayaker72]

So yeah, never mind Tony. The camera is pretty consistent.

Great examples by Jared.

30 fps is a movie camera
There are instances in nature that catching that many fps can help.
However in most instance it will give you multitude of near identical pictures to sort through and figure out which to delete.

This is actually one of the nitpicks I would have with the R3. While on the R5 is is 20 fps or nothing, on the R3 it is 30 fps, 15 fps, or 3 fps. I know you can flip it to mechanical to get other options, but 3 to 15 fps is a large real world gap, IMO. Even if they have to work in increments for 3 for some reason, sure what have been nice to have a 9 fps option, for example. But, real world, you have to find that balance of capturing the moment and having too many images to cull.

Granted, I am seeing that the quick menu is customizable on the R3, so maybe there is now a way to not go into the menu to switch between mechanical/electronic shutter. But, 9 fps would be a nice addition to the electronic shutter options.

[DavidEccleston]

There are instances in nature that catching that many fps can help.
However in most instance it will give you multitude of near identical pictures to sort through and figure out which to delete.

Not just nature, but sports. For my uses, it was dog sports, trying to catch a dog just as it either leaps towards or crests a jump, exits a tunnel, etc.

But burst rate is a double-edged sword. Typically, non-burst, I'd know the course a dog would run, prefocus, and time my shutter press. Move to the next obstacle, and prefocus. I might mis-time things and get an okay shot, or not get a usable shot, or I might get a perfect shot. Typically, with a burst, I'd do nearly same. Prefocus, but then as the dog is approaching, press and hold the shutter early. This raises a number of problems. The action is too fast to switch back of forth between MF and AF, and I never did switch to back-button focus, so I'd run the risk of the camera re-focussing on something else during the burst, ruining the shot. The camera would almost never take an image at the perfect time, leaving me with a lot of dog going over the jump, or out of the tunnel images, but it's rare I'd get one timed well that I really liked. A nose peeking out of the tunnel followed by the dog already being a foot outside the tunnel. Meh. A dog's head hidden behind the jump stand followed by a the dog already descending over the jump Meh. And yes, you have to sort through all those images. Viewfinder blackout meant extra time determining when it was safe to move towards the next shot, tracking motion was tricky.

You'd think getting the perfect shot would be enough to stop me from using burst mode, but the pile of "okay" images makes it hard to stop, because the other side is "I have no usable image here."

Perhaps a burst of 30FPS, and I would assume, no viewfinder blackout, would alleviate the timing and tracking issues, but you'd still have a pile of images to sort through, still run the risk of bad re-focus, and most important of all, just holding the shutter isn't fun or engaging. Perfectly timing a shot gives a sense of accomplishment that burst shooting doesn't give.

[Kayaker72]

Old school blog review by Jeff Cable that used the R3 at the Olympics.

https://blog.jeffcable.com/2021/09/f...%27s+Blog)&m=1

Another pretty positive review. Target market for the R3. Main complaint was the Different formats for the dual card slots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fast Glass]

Being able to dial down the FPS is something I do a lot. There are instances that not only having even 20 FPS was not needed but even pressing it for a split second you ended up shooting a short burst of 3 shots that look identical. So just pulling it down to 10fps to 8fps would give me some burst speed when I need it but not so sensitive where I am constantly shooting burst all the time when I don't want to.

I'm sure this is something Canon could easily fix via a firmware update. Hopefully before the camera is officially released.

Amazing how a little thing, which is standard on pro bodies for a reason, can be quite the annoyance sometimes.

[Fast Glass]

And the other thing is, despite a few little things and watch all the reviews I can. It seems like the R3 is just better.

The unlimited buffer of the 1Dx III is nice along with 20fps mechanical, but really. Is it worth trading better noise performance, better resolution, better dynamic range, IBIS, more than likely better AF especially with native glass, incredibly sharp and fast focusing RF glass, being still able to shoot all your old EF glass, 30 fps and more. Just so you can be trigger happy?

I suspect that for most people that it's not worth trading basically everything good about a camera just for that. Even for the most hard core shooters.

And it begs the question, will there be a price drop for it? Because it doesn't offer enough advantages worth even considering especially when it is $500 more expensive.

Maybe if it was $500 less, but even then. Anyone with that kind of budget would they really want the 1Dx III for $500 less? Probably not.