R3 Observations - Image quality

Ephemeris wrote:

Thanks for the extra information.

Id like to see some controlled images to show fine detail as the ISO setting increases.

The DPR studio does this, somewhat.

We use R5s for this purpose so if the thought that the R3 can provide more detail than the R5 I'd love to see that and maybe we have an alternative.

Using the DPReview comparison tool, R Vs 5Ds Vs R3 Vs R5 at 12800 (limited by 5Ds) the R3 does t look to show the detail of the others. However any other information greatly received.

45MP is more than 24MP; sheer detail rendition the R5 "wins"

There is more to the story, though. Let me draw your attention to the fine print of the DPR studio comparison itself first...

Note, no brightness correction, and the RF 50mm f/1.2L is employed

Note, this one is brightness corrected, and uses the RF 85mm instead to standardize on the newer 85mm standard.

The RF 85mm and 50mmL's have differing light transmission, vignetting and resolution differences at the center and fringes of the image making the comparison different from an input perspective.

Likewise, note the brightness correction application disclaimer on the R3 RAW. Why? The answer is in the ISO standard itself...

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-R3-versus-Canon-EOS-R5___1367_1355

At a Mfrg ISO of 400 (ISO set in-camera), the R3 delivers an ISO sensitivity of 285 vs the R5's ISO sensitivity of 248; different light sensitivity and thereby necessitating brightness correction to have perceptual equity necessary for the DPR studio's "one size fits all" approach. However in practice, you might need say ISO500 on your R5 to have the same exposure as ISO400 on the R3 making the DPR studio approach somewhat misleading when brightness correction has to be applied for a true apples to apples comparison of the effects of noise handling of the two.

Comparing the R3 to the R6 (original) on the other hand, you see the ISO sensitivities are neck and neck

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-R6-versus-Canon-EOS-R3___1354_1367

Now this isn't the end of the story, I've just demonstrated that bigger pixels absorb more light. There's also BSI going on in the R3 via the stacked sensor... Courtesy of TDP, which uses Canon's own DPP4 for his studio samples, not Adobe, and with no corrections, a 24MP FSI (R6 II) vs the 24MP BSI (R3) can be accurately compared to demonstrate the SnR effects of an FSI sensor vs BSI via the link below to see the reduced noise as a result of BSI... Feel free to play around with different ISO settings. Watch the whites and blacks in particular and note the reduced Chroma and Luminance noise on the R3 vs the R6 II, without having to account for resampling (identical resolution)

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=1553&Test=0&ISO=6400&CameraComp=1633&TestComp=0&ISOComp=6400

This explains why the R6 "beats" the R5 in terms of low light sensitivity for AF, and higher ISO range, which according to Canon's literature, gives an indication of better low light potential. And the latter explains why the R3 bests the R6 (and R6 II), as it should being a stacked (BSI) sensor.

You can use the above TDP link to compare the R5 against the R3, however, TDP's comparison does not provide for resampling to give say an apples to apples of a various higher ISOs without brightness compensation e.g. DPR Studio. DPR studio permits resampling on the other hand, but can misrepresent ISO performance.

What I can say, and will restate, the R5 will deliver more resolution at base ISO (100) than the R3 at ISO100. 45MP is 45MP and 24MP is 24MP after all. Where things get murky in regards to only detail (thus exempting color and dynamic range from consideration) rendition is higher ISOs, say 12800. I can say the R5 in my experience, delivers more (not better, more) detail, even at higher resolutions. But, at the cost of color, tones and dynamic range. The R3 "wins" in those just as the R5 "wins" with regard to resolution only, as it should (45MP is 45MP).

This is why I stated, studio and landscape shooters should look at the R5. Event and wedding shooters should look at the R3 (or R6 Mark II). If both? You either have to choose, or bring the best tool for the occasion.

Now for say sports shooters, or in the middle (mixed shooting)? I'm going to nod Canon's recommendation; if you need to crop, R5. If you don't? R3. To quote the first bullet point of the R5...

"Can shoot higher resolution still images and videos due to its higher megapixel count, which provides more flexibility if you need to crop... As such, it is the better choice if post-processing and retouching is a significant part of your workflow."

Cropping, is a part of post-processing workflow...

With regard to the R3, I'll quote them again...

"This makes it a camera geared towards capturing moments. If your shooting style revolves around capturing decisive moments that occur right before your eyes, the fast EOS R3 will be a good choice."

https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/article/eng/eos-r3-vs-eos-r5-which-one-should-i-choose

This all comes down to choosing the right tool for the job. I'll say it bluntly, again; wedding shooters, photojournalists, event shooters? R3 (or R6 Mark II for a fraction of the price, albeit you loose the specialities of the R3). Landscape shooters, studio shooters? R5.