Canon R3

[Dave Throgmartin]

It's amazing how much progress has been made recently in the world of photography.

I wonder if at a point in the future if features like Eye AF might make bird photography so much easier if it'd be less fun. If eventual development means success is almost guaranteed and the need for skill is greatly reduced would you still want to do it?

My family is in north central Illinois. We'll typically travel to the Mississippi River area (~ 1 1/2 hour drive) a couple times a year for eagles in the winter when the Army Corp Engineers counts show eagles are in the areas of the lock & dams. We've done this with equipment as nice as 80D/100-400 II or as basic as 60D/55-250.

The equipment makes a huge difference there is no doubt about that. You could get decent results with 250-300mm focal length and more basic AF if the birds were plentiful, you really knew where to go, have good anticipation, etc... but it is a lot easier with a longer FL lens and better AF.

As time goes on both the equipment, knowledge, and skill get better so of course the end photographs do too. If it became to easy though I though I think it'd lose some of the allure. There are plenty of trips that come up without a lot of photographic return. Of course, there's bonding with people you care about and I think that's really the point of it, eagles are just a good reason to get together.

Dave

[Fast Glass]

Well, if you are used to a 400mm f/5.6. Even a 600mm f/6.3 from Sigma or Tamron is gonna make your 400 feel inadequate in comparison, especially with extenders. It's just a whole another league of reach. Especially for things like eagles. I wouldn't even think of using anything less than a 600mm for a starting point for eagles, you use extenders from there. Eagles are reach hungry.

But more to the point, while gear can make or break a shot in bird photography. It still will never make birding a truly easy situation. I have gone wading up to my chin in water, freezing cold till I can't feel my fingers. Rained on. Sweating hot. Sinking in quicksand (That got me a little scared, threw my gear onto dry land and my brother pulled me out. lol!). Stalking for 3 or 4 hours or making special trips to places for shots. It's still offers plenty of challenge no matter what. And when you have done all that, I'd much rather have a 600mm f/4 or 800mm f/5.6 with an R3 and walk away with the shot that looks amazing, maybe a shot of a lifetime.

I do have fun doing it, but it's not the reason I do it. It's the end result always that gets me my high. When I land a great shot, it's a rush. That's my fix. Because without that, all the fun I had going out to take the shot wasn't really that fun anymore without that end result. If I wanted to enjoy nature I'd go hiking or birding with binoculars. Which I also do.

Kind of like racing, people race to win. It's an imperfect example, but you get the idea.

It's imperfect because no matter what racing itself is also fun. But photography, the end result is much more important. How excited can you get of the gear or taking shots that are not very good?

I can relate to this growing up, we didn't have a lot of money and I would mess around with film cameras. I didn't always have film so I just took shots without film. Or when my camera was down and I didn't have one for almost 2 years. I'd go out birding with my 600mm even though I didn't have a working camera.

Let me tell ya, that got old quick. It wasn't fun unless you took a picture to give you some sort of reward for your effort.

[Kayaker72]

Yep.

Getting the right moment with wildlife is challenging enough. Having better gear just makes it more likely you capture that moment.

I've had good enough gear to capture waterfalls, sunrises, etc for years and years. Yet, I still get up early or go hiking to do so.

[Dave Throgmartin]

There's definitely a factor of perspective in all of this. You occasionally see people at the locks & dams or surrounding areas with a pro grade camera and big white, but it may be less common than you'd think. 80D/100-400 II is actually a better set up than probably 70% of the people I've seen over the years. More focal length is better, but if you know where to go and have luck on your side you can actually take quite competent eagle pictures that have eye detail, feather detail, etc... with less.

Facebook, Flickr, etc... tell the tale. Some eagle pictures are absolutely amazing. Some are not even in focus. I guess it comes down to the eye of the photographer and expectations. Personally, I try to confirm the count is high enough and the weather will be good before leaving and hope for the best. It usually works out, but not always.

There's certainly an element of challenge in any wild life photography that technical advancements may never eliminate.

Dave

[Kayaker72]

Yep (apparently I am very agreeable this Monday morning).

First, gear does not make the photographer, an 80D/100-400 II is a great set up, better than my original 7D and 100-400 Mk I, and amazing pictures can be and have been taken with that gear.

But, getting back to your "fun" comment. I think "fun" is maximized when you have a goal that is a challenge, but obtainable. As your goals get higher and higher, you need to make them obtainable either by better circumstances (still the best way to get better pictures is to put yourself in the best possible location), perseverance, or with better, higher performing, gear. The perspective part is really where you are on that challenge curve.

And nothing wrong with any of that...for most of us, this is just a fun hobby.

Of course, for professionals, consistently capturing that moment as perfectly as possible is even more critical (granted, as soon as they are above the minimum threshold, costs can take over). Actually, I saw this great quote by a MiLB player the other day, something to the extent that "consistency is the only difference between being in the MiLB and MLB, we can throw 99 mph, hit 99 mph, but they just do it more consistently." I think there are some other differences, like a change up that will leave you wondering what your name is, but it is a good perspective.

[Kayaker72]

Vanessa Joy editing raw photos. Skip to the last 30 secs if you want her conclusion...

Editing Canon EOS R3 RAW Files - YouTube

[Fast Glass]

I'm certain it will be excellent the sensor. I just can't draw any sort of conclusion based on the video, it could be any modern sensor just based on these very vague examples on the video.

[Kayaker72]

Sure. I haven't drawn any conclusions either. I'd say my interest is piqued. This is both about the R3 specifically, but generally what Canon can do with a stacked BSI sensor as this is their first. I was always curious, but I am beginning to think there is a bit more there than faster readouts.

At this stage, when you are hearing impressions, people often focus on what Canon is pushing, and here it is the 30 fps, vehicle AF, eye-control AF, etc. But you begin to hear things that caught their attention, or users outside the target market that begin to adapt the camera and why. Another example, Canon Asia released this brochure, originally seen on CR, but on page 8 they have an image taken at ISO 51,200. Often time when hyping a camera's high ISO abilities, they say it can natively do ISO 10,000,000,000, but show an image taken at ISO 12,800. Here Canon is showing an image taken at ISO 51,200 and, while you can obviously see some noise, it looks better than any ISO 51,200 image I have seen.

We won't know anything more definitive until late November/December once production bodies are in peoples hands, and groups like photos to photos are doing their assessments. It'll also be interesting, if there is an increase in high ISO performance, did they do this by decreasing read noise (), or, has a sensor finally moved up from the ~55% quantum efficiency Canon/Sony/others have been at for ~5 years.

So, my interest in the abilities of the sensor is piqued.

[Fast Glass]

For sure, that is one of the things that impressed me with the 1Dx III was it's already very good IQ.

I fully expect the 3R to do better than the 1Dx III by a significant margin.

For me the interesting part is how well does the buffer hold up. I know Jeff Cable lost some good shots in the Olympics to the slower clearing of the buffer. Yes it was due to writing to the SD and CFexpress cards. But that is an important feature for some.

And knowing myself, probably just use a slower FPS setting or just be mindful of the buffer and not use the SD slot.

And of course AF. It's been shown the burst rate is pretty consistent. I'm pretty certain it will rock in the other areas. Just wondering how it performs as a whole.

[Fast Glass]

https://youtu.be/G6s81adlObY

What gets me is that Canon says it has better durability the 1Dx III. But in what way? The weathersealling and magnesium construction is equivalent.

Both are rated for the same temperature ranges.

Both have 500,000 shot shutter life.

So makes me wonder what is more durable then? Because that is one of the big reasons why Canon is saying the R3 is still not able to compete with the 1Dx III. Are they gonna say the electronics are more durable?

I feel like Canon essentially made a spiritual successor to the 1D like. A camera focused on speed and the R1 will be the spiritual successor to the 1Ds line for a higher resolution body. But yet they are trying to distinguish it from the 1-series level of cameras. But didn't do very good job of it. They are more similar than different. Taking away a couple of features and knocking it out of the park in every other way possible and creating game changing features and capabilities like IBIS, insane frame rate, better IQ, very likely drastically better AF ect. Things that really matter. So I don't think most people really consider that dumbing it down to 3-series body. Not in compsrison to the 1Dx III anyway.

I feel like the marketing department are not really camera people, or even enthusiast level camera people. Because anyone comparing the two, the R3 handily beats it.