Re: After 50 weddings with the R3's
1
noggin2k1 wrote:
I thought it's probably time to share my thoughts!
Bit of a backstory; I started my wedding career as a Canon boy, who then switched over to Sony (the pull of the mirrorless world was too strong for me). I finished up on the A9II's, with a few key complaints;
- Build quality. I've first hand had my issues with Sony build quality (and slow repair times). I needed cameras that can take a bit more punishment in the real world.
- Hotshoe. Sounds mega trivial, but flashes with plastic hotshoes - I didn't fancy needing to buy a new one / repair one every 3 weddings because they'd snapped.
- Low light AF. It certainly wasn't bad, but I needed something that had a much better hit rate on a dimly lit dance floor.
- Banding. Mechanical or electronic shutter - banding was always an issue. I didn't want to need to think about it - I just wanted the camera to make sure it wasn't prevalent.
- Ergonomics. Totally personal, but the cameras were just that bit too small for my spade-like hands.
- Saturation. I didn't want to need to sort out RAW colours SOOC before even starting on editing.
Along came the R5's, and I pulled the trigger almost imminently. They solved so so many of my headaches, and were the perfect camera for the season I used them in. As much as I loved them, I can remember saying "If Canon could just deliver these last few bits, they'd give me the perfect camera";
- Lower MP's - I just didn't need 45MP for weddings
- An electronic shutter that is useable 100% of the time
- An integrated battery grip (I predominantly shoot portrait, and charging 8 batteries per wedding is a pain)
Alas, Canon obviously read my thoughts, and along came the R3. Rather than continuing to waffle, I thought I'd highlight some of my key thoughts;
Good (when upgrading from the R5's)
- 1 battery lasts a whole wedding without having to think about being conservative and switching the cameras off
- The electronic shutter implementation is utterly flawless. I've never since had any banding, and don't even need to think about settings/shutter speed for it
- The AF can see in the dark. I'm yet to find any scenario where it's struggled to focus
- I'm yet to hit the limit on dynamic range
Not so good
- I find eyeAF doesn't really work for weddings. I imagine it's great for motorsport, but at a crowded wedding - it doesn't quite nail the focus in the places I'm looking for.
That's pretty much it. I've still got some work to do on sorting out my AF settings, but that's all on me. I really can't see what else I'd want from a camera, other than improved high ISO performance - but I've not seen anything that has a notable "real world" performance better than the R3, so "hopefully" that stops me spending on bodies for a few years.
Just an RF 24L and 35L now please Canon...
Thanks for your thoughts and nice images! I bet the couple liked them.
Just out of curiosity, when you mention "Saturation" as a con for the Sony. Do you mean the files were too saturated or too muted?
Also, how is the R3 in terms of color rendition using the regular Canon profiles and lenses?