R3 with 1.4 TC or R7

I am an "enthusiast" bird photographer trying an apples to oranges comparison between the Canon R3 and upcoming Canon R7 camera to determine which would be a better purchase for me.   I don't shoot at set up blinds and prefer action photography over stills.  I currently shoot an R5 or 1dx II with a 600 MM f4 IS II, Canon 400 MM DO IS II or Canon 100-400 mm IS II.  I am pleased with the overall results I get using any of those lenses and a 1.4 Teleconverter.  The R5 often takes more time to acquire focus than the length of an event that I am trying to acquire unless the R5 is pre-focused near the focus distance required for the shot.

Replacing my 1dxII with one of these two options is the goal due to the focus tracking  superiority, increased resolution and frame rates available and the ease of capturing occasional viewfinder based videos.  I usually carry both the r5 and 1dx II on primes as my "zoom" option.

My comparison is based on  using the 1.4 type three teleconverter on the 24 mpix R3 or having a bare lens on the 32 mpix R7.   I am expecting to have superior focusing abilities with the R3 and 1.4 TC than the R7 due to technical design, battery type and marketing position.  My example is based on having an R3 combo providing a 560 mm equivalent field of view vs an R7 cropped equivalent 640mm field of view considering using a 400 mm lens on either camera.  I want to consider the crop sensor R7 so I can carry smaller lighter glass and potentially get better detail with the 32 mpix sensor.

I am also considering Canon's own documentation stating that the perceived resolution of the  R3 is more like that of a 30 mpix sensor and that the expected 32 mpix of the R7 requires a pixel size and density equivalent to a full frame sensor of more than 80 mpix.  I have to expect a significant  ISO noise penalty with the R7 compared to the R3 since 1/2000 is considered my minimum shutter speed except on large birds in flight.

While I can afford the R3 ( a used one may be available at $5 - 5.5 K ) I still have to consider price a factor.  Considering price it might also make sense to consider that I could get the R7 and the RF 100-500MM lens for about the same cost as the R3 alone.

Ideally, bird in flight shooters and action wildlife shooters using the R3 would comment here. Thanks in advance....

As with most discussion I fully expect this to be more about compromises and "discussion" vs "conclusion".

Zcarxrg wrote:

I am an "enthusiast" bird photographer trying an apples to oranges comparison between the Canon R3 and upcoming Canon R7 camera to determine which would be a better purchase for me. I don't shoot at set up blinds and prefer action photography over stills. I currently shoot an R5 or 1dx II with a 600 MM f4 IS II, Canon 400 MM DO IS II or Canon 100-400 mm IS II. I am pleased with the overall results I get using any of those lenses and a 1.4 Teleconverter. The R5 often takes more time to acquire focus than the length of an event that I am trying to acquire unless the R5 is pre-focused near the focus distance required for the shot.

Replacing my 1dxII with one of these two options is the goal due to the focus tracking superiority, increased resolution and frame rates available and the ease of capturing occasional viewfinder based videos. I usually carry both the r5 and 1dx II on primes as my "zoom" option.

My comparison is based on using the 1.4 type three teleconverter on the 24 mpix R3 or having a bare lens on the 32 mpix R7. I am expecting to have superior focusing abilities with the R3 and 1.4 TC than the R7 due to technical design, battery type and marketing position. My example is based on having an R3 combo providing a 560 mm equivalent field of view vs an R7 cropped equivalent 640mm field of view considering using a 400 mm lens on either camera. I want to consider the crop sensor R7 so I can carry smaller lighter glass and potentially get better detail with the 32 mpix sensor.

I am also considering Canon's own documentation stating that the perceived resolution of the R3 is more like that of a 30 mpix sensor and that the expected 32 mpix of the R7 requires a pixel size and density equivalent to a full frame sensor of more than 80 mpix. I have to expect a significant ISO noise penalty with the R7 compared to the R3 since 1/2000 is considered my minimum shutter speed except on large birds in flight.

While I can afford the R3 ( a used one may be available at $5 - 5.5 K ) I still have to consider price a factor. Considering price it might also make sense to consider that I could get the R7 and the RF 100-500MM lens for about the same cost as the R3 alone.

Ideally, bird in flight shooters and action wildlife shooters using the R3 would comment here. Thanks in advance....

As with most discussion I fully expect this to be more about compromises and "discussion" vs "conclusion".

I've had just about every crop body Canon has released.  However, shooting in early morning light and evenings, more often than not, left me disappointed with overall results.  I too wonder about the new R7, but difficult to draw any conclusions at this point before trying one.  So that's up in the air.  It's wait and see.

For several years now, I've used longer glass with FF bodies which have given me the best results.  My gear mirrors yours except for recently selling off the 600 F4 ll.  I too am waiting for a better deal on the R3 and waiting on the upcoming RF 500 F4.

For golden hour shooting, I would venture to say the R3 with TC and long glass would be my choice for best low light performance.  I'm also waiting on the availability of the Z9 and new 800 F6.3 to add to my gear... that's why I sold off the 600 F4 ll.

You may want to buy the R3 and then the R7 when released, then sell off the R7 if it disappoints.  Decisions, decisions... Good luck

I would say go with the R3 or wait for the R1 to decide like I’m doing.

The R3 with the bigger battery will give faster auto focus when you pair it with the right glass, that’s one reason I traded my EF 600 II in on the RF 600 and the weight saving is nice also.

the so called "r7" rumored thing will need a serious excuse for it's existence, if it supplies such, it may definitely be the way to go.

i'd say unless you're terribly urged, wait and see (just don't wait too long...), i'm sure the r5/1dx combo will do a great job in the meantime.

Thanks very much for responding.  As you stated, it may make sense to try the R7 and see how it works. I expect pre-order will be required or it may take many months to actually get one. The Z9 you mentioned  appears to hit a sweet spot for my type of photography with the 500 pf and the new 800 being excellent lens options.

I my decide to do both- get the R3 now because it will be months before R1 announcement and an unpredictable time before getting one in hand. If the pixel count is much higher than the R5 it may not be able to control ISO noise when at higher shutter speeds and would not fit my needs.  Having that 600 mm RF at under seven lbs has to be a tremendous improvement over any of  the heavier 600 mm lenses when trying to capture handheld in flight shots.   Switching from the 8.5 lb.  Canon IS II to my Sigma 500 f4 at 7.5 lbs. is already a big change. That option is a long term goal which I have decided to put off until I have multiple mirrorless cameras since  I can use the IS II version on every camera I have.

Thank you very much for commenting.

tc

yerach wrote:

the so called "r7" rumored thing will need a serious excuse for it's existence, if it supplies such, it may definitely be the way to go.

i'd say unless you're terribly urged, wait and see (just don't wait too long...), i'm sure the r5/1dx combo will do a great job in the meantime.

Yes , the 1dx II is still taking great pictures. It is not unusual for me to shoot it alongside  the R5 and print 1DX II  images as opposed to R5 images. I sure miss that animal eye detection and electronic shutter speed when switching to the 1dx II, however.

The r7 announcement is expected at the end of the month. With the supply chain issues I would imagine I would need to glance at the specs and order one before there is much real world use info available. Usually the first in use  information comes from people who work for Canon or from people who work for vendors. The initial vendor images are often mediocre shots taken under bad conditions by people who sell cameras-not wild life photo enthusiasts.

Thank you for responding.

tc

Zcarxrg wrote:

Thanks very much for responding. As you stated, it may make sense to try the R7 and see how it works. I expect pre-order will be required or it may take many months to actually get one.

The Z9 you mentioned appears to hit a sweet spot for my type of photography with the 500 pf and the new 800 being excellent lens options.

Yes.  It should work well for me too.  I had a 1.4 lll glued to my 600 F4 ll.  Therefore, the 800 F6.3 at 5lbs would be a dream lens for hand holding and travel... for the long end.  However, I hear the new Canon RF 500 F4 will be much lighter than the current 500 F4 ll.  The new RF version will have big shoes to fill, as the 500 f4 ll was the best lens I ever owned.  Sold it for the 600 F4 ll, regrettably.

Zcarxrg wrote:

Yes , the 1dx II is still taking great pictures. It is not unusual for me to shoot it alongside the R5 and print 1DX II images as opposed to R5 images. I sure miss that animal eye detection and electronic shutter speed when switching to the 1dx II, however.

The r7 announcement is expected at the end of the month. With the supply chain issues I would imagine I would need to glance at the specs and order one before there is much real world use info available. Usually the first in use information comes from people who work for Canon or from people who work for vendors. The initial vendor images are often mediocre shots taken under bad conditions by people who sell cameras-not wild life photo enthusiasts.

Thank you for responding.

tc

i'd think the main answer will be in the official specs, i think by this point we can expect canon r cameras to stand up to their title.

Zcarxrg wrote:

I am an "enthusiast" bird photographer trying an apples to oranges comparison between the Canon R3 and upcoming Canon R7 camera to determine which would be a better purchase for me. I don't shoot at set up blinds and prefer action photography over stills. I currently shoot an R5 or 1dx II with a 600 MM f4 IS II, Canon 400 MM DO IS II or Canon 100-400 mm IS II. I am pleased with the overall results I get using any of those lenses and a 1.4 Teleconverter. The R5 often takes more time to acquire focus than the length of an event that I am trying to acquire unless the R5 is pre-focused near the focus distance required for the shot.

Replacing my 1dxII with one of these two options is the goal due to the focus tracking superiority, increased resolution and frame rates available and the ease of capturing occasional viewfinder based videos. I usually carry both the r5 and 1dx II on primes as my "zoom" option.

My comparison is based on using the 1.4 type three teleconverter on the 24 mpix R3 or having a bare lens on the 32 mpix R7. I am expecting to have superior focusing abilities with the R3 and 1.4 TC than the R7 due to technical design, battery type and marketing position. My example is based on having an R3 combo providing a 560 mm equivalent field of view vs an R7 cropped equivalent 640mm field of view considering using a 400 mm lens on either camera. I want to consider the crop sensor R7 so I can carry smaller lighter glass and potentially get better detail with the 32 mpix sensor.

I am also considering Canon's own documentation stating that the perceived resolution of the R3 is more like that of a 30 mpix sensor and that the expected 32 mpix of the R7 requires a pixel size and density equivalent to a full frame sensor of more than 80 mpix. I have to expect a significant ISO noise penalty with the R7 compared to the R3 since 1/2000 is considered my minimum shutter speed except on large birds in flight.

While I can afford the R3 ( a used one may be available at $5 - 5.5 K ) I still have to consider price a factor. Considering price it might also make sense to consider that I could get the R7 and the RF 100-500MM lens for about the same cost as the R3 alone.

Ideally, bird in flight shooters and action wildlife shooters using the R3 would comment here. Thanks in advance....

As with most discussion I fully expect this to be more about compromises and "discussion" vs "conclusion".

This is no longer discussion worthy.  The R7 is not the APS-C version of a pro camera that the 7D series was and should have been called an R8 or maybe an R9 to leave space for a true 7Dseries replacement and maybe another camera in between. Before announcement the indications that the camera was using two sdxc uhs II cards was a red flag, perhaps telling about the size of the camera and even more worrisome, the buffer size- which appears to be about 60 frames in 30 fps electronic mode, even with the fastest and most expensive memory card on the market .  The idea of the R7 being a replacement for the 7d series meant it would be very much like the R5 and R6 and be in a similar body size just like the 7d Series had the same body and controls layout as the 5d series. Instead the camera appears to aim at the Sony 6600 in a body that requires a battery grip for many users and has ergonomics which make it a difficult backup for the R5 or R6 cameras.  I was hoping the R7 would have the shooting capabilities to make it worthy of the $2000 to $2700 pro-level camera some were expecting but that did not happen.

yerach wrote:

Zcarxrg wrote:

Yes , the 1dx II is still taking great pictures. It is not unusual for me to shoot it alongside the R5 and print 1DX II images as opposed to R5 images. I sure miss that animal eye detection and electronic shutter speed when switching to the 1dx II, however.

The r7 announcement is expected at the end of the month. With the supply chain issues I would imagine I would need to glance at the specs and order one before there is much real world use info available. Usually the first in use information comes from people who work for Canon or from people who work for vendors. The initial vendor images are often mediocre shots taken under bad conditions by people who sell cameras-not wild life photo enthusiasts.

Thank you for responding.

tc

i'd think the main answer will be in the official specs, i think by this point we can expect canon r cameras to stand up to their title.

The R7 has some nice capabilities with  good subject tracking and appears to be a good value and an above entry level camera. The ergonomics make it a difficult camera to use if “zoom” means switching cameras to access a different focal length.

I can’t see any way in which the R7 isn’t a better camera than the 7D2 is.  I still have my 7D and 7D2, each of which I’ve taken thousands of shots with.  I haven’t picked up either of them since getting my R5 18 months ago.  I love the R5, but there are times when I want a little more reach or the extra stop of light I would gain by shooting without the 1.4x extender on Mt EF 100-400 mk2 lens.  I pre-ordered the R7 early on the day it was announced.  As far as I am concerned, I can’t see any ergonomic problems with switching between the R5 and the R7.  I’ve shot with so many cameras that small changes in ergonomics don’t bother me.

yerach wrote:

the so called "r7" rumored thing will need a serious excuse for it's existence, if it supplies such, it may definitely be the way to go.

i'd say unless you're terribly urged, wait and see (just don't wait too long...), i'm sure the r5/1dx combo will do a great job in the meantime.

Off topic here, but.....

The 1dx II still works fine, often preferable when an instant shot is required relative to the R5 often taking several seconds to allow me to see the focus points on the screen once it has gone in to standby mode. I also can’t remember the 1dx II locking up during use. That happens nearly every time out with the R5. Can’t beat the focus tracking and “up tp 20 fps” of the R5, however. Simple editing tasks with the 1dx images take 1/4 to 1/2 the time those same tasks with the R5 even (or because of ) using CRAW most of the time. A new feature of the R5 with the most current upgrade is that I now get a knocking noise from my 600 f4 when having a Sigma 1.4 TC in use. I fear that the lens may be damaged if the Sigma TC is used.  I bought a second Sigma TC instead of a second Canon TC because the Sigma teleconverters can be used on Sigma or Canon lenses but the Canon TC do not work on Canon lenses.

It’s funny but I have become used to the R5 electronic viewfinder and prefer looking at it instead of the 1dx II viewfinder which now looks odd. I actually have to see the images from the 1dx II to verify they are good. The R5 images, oddly, look better in the viewfinder than I can possible get them to look on my 1080p PC. I know images display better on a MAC ( which I do not use) . Perhaps a 4K display might help. I expect I may put some images on a flash drive and take them somewhere to display on better monitors.

tc

Neil Schofield wrote:

danferrin wrote:

I can’t see any way in which the R7 isn’t a better camera than the 7D2 is. I still have my 7D and 7D2, each of which I’ve taken thousands of shots with. I haven’t picked up either of them since getting my R5 18 months ago. I love the R5, but there are times when I want a little more reach or the extra stop of light I would gain by shooting without the 1.4x extender on Mt EF 100-400 mk2 lens. I pre-ordered the R7 early on the day it was announced. As far as I am concerned, I can’t see any ergonomic problems with switching between the R5 and the R7. I’ve shot with so many cameras that small changes in ergonomics don’t bother me.

Apart from battery life, add on grip, on board flash, ergonomics, weather sealing, but I know where you’re coming from, maybe we will have to wait 7 years for the R7Mll

Whilst the initial specs and ergonomics of the R7 came as a disappointment for me, I was looking for an ASPC R body to pair with my R3, I am sure that it will be a great body and sell well, I will take a view when it’s released and more in depth reviews are available, if it pairs well with the RF 800 f11 and gives a greater focus area, then that’s a big one for me

One area not covered in the thread is rolling shutter v R3 at fast electronic shutter frame rates, however 15fps on mechanical looks good, but again it depends on what you shoot

I personally think shooting with the R5 for 1/2 hour then switching to an R7 for in instant action shot will be an issue unless all I have to do is select which back button to use for focus. The thumbwheel joystick combo might be really great or it might be a compromise due to lack of real estate. Yesterday I shot a 4 or 5 second burst at 20 fps electronic shutter on the R5  of a heron in flight.  That’s probably a buffer lock up on the R7 at high frame rate but most likely doable in mechanical or reduced  electronic shutter rate with less shots to pick from.  Rolling shutter appears to be more of a problem than with the R5 but that is not yet fully determined. I wanted a battery grip for the R5, both for having two batteries and preferring but not necessarily having to have a large body.  If the R7 size necessitates needing a grip that extra price is probably about half of the extra it would likely to have cost to make a true 7d II replacement.   I have never felt there was  more difficulty in changing batteries quite quickly in a non gripped body vs changing them half as often with more downtime in a grip caddy. A crop sensor in an R6 body could have filled the 7d II replacement niche at less than than the R6 cost, though I personally would prefer the R5 controls for seamless switching.  The value pricing of the R7 makes it a great camera for those who don’t have the budget for a near pro body but want to get access to high speed sports shooting.

That’s a good point about the likelihood of the F11 lenses now having most of the screen available for focusing on the smaller sensors.  I would lean towards the  600 mm on a crop sensor but I I am sure the 800 mm would have advantages in some applications.  I wish those lenses had a shorter minimum focal distance for things like crabs and small bugs.

Thank you for commenting.

Zcarxrg wrote:

yerach wrote:

the so called "r7" rumored thing will need a serious excuse for it's existence, if it supplies such, it may definitely be the way to go.

i'd say unless you're terribly urged, wait and see (just don't wait too long...), i'm sure the r5/1dx combo will do a great job in the meantime.

Off topic here, but.....

The 1dx II still works fine, often preferable when an instant shot is required relative to the R5 often taking several seconds to allow me to see the focus points on the screen once it has gone in to standby mode. I also can’t remember the 1dx II locking up during use. That happens nearly every time out with the R5. Can’t beat the focus tracking and “up tp 20 fps” of the R5, however. Simple editing tasks with the 1dx images take 1/4 to 1/2 the time those same tasks with the R5 even (or because of ) using CRAW most of the time. A new feature of the R5 with the most current upgrade is that I now get a knocking noise from my 600 f4 when having a Sigma 1.4 TC in use. I fear that the lens may be damaged if the Sigma TC is used. I bought a second Sigma TC instead of a second Canon TC because the Sigma teleconverters can be used on Sigma or Canon lenses but the Canon TC do not work on Canon lenses.

It’s funny but I have become used to the R5 electronic viewfinder and prefer looking at it instead of the 1dx II viewfinder which now looks odd. I actually have to see the images from the 1dx II to verify they are good. The R5 images, oddly, look better in the viewfinder than I can possible get them to look on my 1080p PC. I know images display better on a MAC ( which I do not use) . Perhaps a 4K display might help. I expect I may put some images on a flash drive and take them somewhere to display on better monitors.

tc

I've been shooting the r5 for a while now and I'm completely unfamiliar with the lock up symptom you talk about...

I do use a Mac (a new xdr display one at that), and although no match to it, the evf looks great, at first it took me while to get used to the ever so slight smear when panning (even at 120fps, but I guess I was looking for it...), I was very sceptical, but now I'm happy with it, and  ovfs suddenly look very dark to me.