Canon R3

[Fast Glass]

Haha, probably. So much of it is not very scientific to say the least.

I barely ever watch them, it think I've watched 2 or 3 vids from them altogether. But I think at this point I'm gonna relegate them to Ken Rockwell status. Maybe a notch above that.

The only thing I lend a little bit of thought is the birding. But even then I would not be using the way they did the AF system.

But regardless I feel like the R3 would really have to shine in order to really even be relevant to the A1. Not that I'm buying one, I've decided against that for now. But it's a super solid body that is hard to beat especially when it is in the same price bracket as the R3. It just gives the feel of not giving up anything. Want a high res body? Check. Want an all out sports/fast action body? Check.

[neuroanatomist]

Want a high res body? Check. Want an all out sports/fast action body? Check.

Want a body that works perfectly with my large collection of lenses?
Want a system with all the lenses I need, including wide and ultrawide tilt-shift lenses?
Want a body with an integrated vertical grip for better ergonomics?

Hmmmm, the A1 seems to leave several of my boxes unchecked.

[Fast Glass]

I'm not speaking for any one person's particular circumstance. Sorry if it offends anyone, but really hard not to compare the A1 and the R3 or even Nikons Z9 for that matter.

As far as vertical grip, I do like it better it being built in. But not everyone has that preference and Sony's whole spiel is about being compact and light. But that is really nit-picking it and ignoring the whole package. Which is what you have to do when looking at any product. I don't think anyone can make a rational argument because it doesn't have a vertical grip it makes it anywhere near as important as what it offers.

As far as lenses Sony does have some excellent options and this is being populated just like Canon's RF mount is. You'd have to adapt perhaps for some specific lenses in both camps.

And I think it's a fair compare to other brands. Hopefully Canon might actually listen more and not be so set in their ways. Competition is good and pushes all the manufacturers to be as good as they can be.

It's not about putting any one brand down. It's about having a discussion.

[neuroanatomist]

Ergonomics are very personal. Some like small and light, others more surface area to grip. The camera will be in my hands for hours, and comfort is not a nit-pick. Would you buy an uncomfortable office chair you planned to sit in for hours a day? Personally, I wouldn’t.

Comparing cameras can be a fun exercise, and there’s nothing wrong with that. At the high end, I’m not sure there is practical value in such an exercise for most users. Changing systems is not a simple matter for most people sufficiently far along to be using or considering top-level bodies. It’s more the province of ‘specibaters’ like the people who peruse the auto magazine comparisons of Ferrari vs. Lamborghini models but are Camry drivers. I’m sure there are people at the top level who do switch, but I doubt it’s a significant number.

[Fast Glass]

Ergonomics are very personal. Some like small and light, others more surface area to grip. The camera will be in my hands for hours, and comfort is not a nit-pick. Would you buy an uncomfortable office chair you planned to sit in for hours a day? Personally, I wouldn’t.

Comparing cameras can be a fun exercise, and there’s nothing wrong with that. At the high end, I’m not sure there is practical value in such an exercise for most users. Changing systems is not a simple matter for most people sufficiently far along to be using or considering top-level bodies. It’s more the province of ‘specibaters’ like the people who peruse the auto magazine comparisons of Ferrari vs. Lamborghini models but are Camry drivers. I’m sure there are people at the top level who do switch, but I doubt it’s a significant number.

So while I agree statement 100%, we are not talking about an uncomfortable camera with the A1. Not my preference either. But we are also not talking about the difference of a 5D IV vs a 1Dx III class of camera where it's only giving up a small resolution difference in comparison. We are talking about slightly over double the resolution in a camera that squashes the competition in pretty much every conceivable way. And while the glass department is probably not significantly better hard to argue it is at a disadvantage either.

Now, I'm not telling anyone what to buy. My rational is the R3 better deliver something the A1 cannot otherwise it pretty much limits it's market to the Canon fanboys really. If you gonna switch, Sony has that market cornered. SOOOO many people are switching because both Canon and Nikon are switching ecosystems. So LOTS and LOTS of people are switching to Sony because they are just so competitive and if you are not brand loyal it makes a lot of sense for a lot of people.

I am a bit of a Canon fan boy I admit, I just can't switch very easily and I am a creature of habit. I'm just so used to Canon. But if they make a 30mp R1 (I doubt it), I MIGHT just switch to the Fuji medium format system and rock the house with 100mp and insane IQ or maybe the A1, or both. Because at that point Canon pretty much has made it's point across they do not want to support the higher resolution shooters who want a professional body. I just don't want to wait another 10 years for them to release a 50mp pro body. But being a Canon shooter since 2007???? Something like that, it's just hard to switch in my mind. We shall see.

But, I still can't ignore the overall products Sony makes. They are pretty good.

[Joel Eade]

I have been very tempted by Sony but my collection of top tier Canon glass keeps me put and in the end bird in flight is only a very tiny percentage of what I do and that is where the Sony may have a bit of edge over Canon. Otherwise the R5 and 5DMKIV combo fits the bill perfectly for now. Both are great for birding with high enough resolution for great detail and to allow substantial cropping, plenty of speed for my purposes and (again for me) no focusing issues. I believe the R5 firmware update has improved the AF even more. So for now I am staying with Canon and the R3 is of no interest but ....... the R1 ...... that's another story

PS I also like the Sony exposure system being able to use "zebras" to identify overexposed highlights makes it easier to get perfect exposures very quickly without any test shots

[HDNitehawk]

Deciding to changing from EF to RF would give a person the opportunity to switch to a different manufacture. Some of the expense could be minimized and offset by the additional cost the EF system costs you to upgrade.

The value of the comparison would have been before I bought the R5 and three RF L lenses.

The rule used to be that you bought in to the system with the best glass. That debate doesn't materialize on the forums as much as it used to.

[Joel Eade]

The rule used to be that you bought in to the system with the best glass. That debate doesn't materialize on the forums as much as it used to.

Especially with Canon R cameras all your EF glass works perfectly with a simple adapter.

[Kayaker72]

The rule used to be that you bought in to the system with the best glass. That debate doesn't materialize on the forums as much as it used to.

I think the importance of glass is still very true. What has changed is that the technology behind designing and making lenses has improved so much, most glass is really very very good. Then there has also been convergence around lenses offered (24-70, 70-200, etc).

Canon has gotten so good that lens design that the RF 14-35 f/4 is not anywhere near rectilinear as it hits the sensor, but Canon is fixing the distortion automatically and baking it into the "RAW" files. But, we get a 14 mm wide lens that accepts front mounted filters that is also small, light and superb IQ.

And...Canon just bought a supercomputer to dedicate to lens design.

Even most of the affordable lenses are really pretty good. My EF-M 55-200 is probably the worst lens I own, but I have used it to take several images that I've posted on the forum. The 100-400 II was raved about as being so much better than the Mk 1, comparable to the much more expensive 200-400 f/4 w 1.4TC....yet, the RF 100-500 is better....remember the super expensive Zeiss Otus lenses? Don't hear much about them anymore as now most manufacturer prime lenses are right in there in terms of quality.

It's just nuts how good lenses are.

Especially with Canon R cameras all your EF glass works perfectly with a simple adapter.

Yep. And you get drop in filters.

[neuroanatomist]

Canon has gotten so good that lens design that the RF 14-35 f/4 is not anywhere near rectilinear as it hits the sensor, but Canon is fixing the distortion automatically and baking it into the "RAW" files. But, we get a 14 mm wide lens that accepts front mounted filters that is also small, light and superb IQ.

The RF 24-240mm and RF 16/2.8 also ‘force’ corrections, although they’re only forced on RAW files if you use DPP. I found that with RF 14-35mm files converted in DxO PhotoLab, I’m actually getting the FoV of ~13.5mm at the wide end.