R3 Observations - Image quality

Continuing my mini-series on the R3, see part 1 here on autofocus if you missed it...

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66750960

.

Coming from the 30MP Full Frame EOS R, there’s no perceivable detail loss. The 6MP loss on paper is being offset, presumably this is due to either the updated AA filter, newer processing of DIGICX and/or perhaps the newer sensor design and type (stacked CMOS). Canons claim that the 24MP EOS R3 sensor matches the 5D Mark IV’s 30MP resolving power despite being only 24MP appears true.

Lots of DR at high ISOs; sounds counterintuitive needing DR at high ISOs, till you need it. Shooting a cloudy day in the shade? I have.

Regarding high ISO handling, it’s roughly 1/6-1/2 stop better than my R in my viewing which was already phenomenal, I say 1/6 (half of a third stop) to 1/2 stop as it seems to vary depending on lighting and ISO as to how much of a difference, you could just say 1/3 stop though to keep it simple. This may not sound like much, but ISO16000 is my new ISO12800. Shots at 25600, or even 32000? Usable now where before I’d cull the shot and would use 25600 as “emergency mode”, now ISO25600 is perfectly acceptable depending on the scenario and desired output medium. It’s a low light champ, which I was hoping for and am happy to report affirmative for poor lighting or existing light shooting the R3 really excels; the results give me a smile every time. This gives either cleaner shots, or more leeway to push higher shutters, or higher apertures, without, or with less penalty otherwise. I usually push more shutter myself these days where before I’d dial it back.

Color fidelity holds at high ISOs on the R3, all the way to ISO25600 in my viewing, a compliant solved I had with my time on the R5 where past ISO3200, although it would render fine details well, colors start to become muted and loose their pop. My former lowly EOS R didn’t have this problem till around ISO8000 on the other hand but lacked the IBIS and the higher FPS of the newer R5 and R6 leaving me having to choose to trade one for the other. The R3 on the other hand gives me better ISO handling, without having to give up effective resolution of the EOS R. Now I can have both the same resolving power of the 30MP EOS R, but, have improved ISO handling, Dynamic Range, IBIS and even faster FPS than the R5 or R6. I’m not a fan of win-loose propositions.

Side note regarding vs the R6; the R3 gives top notch ISO handling AND gives nice smooth detail rendering which I never cared for the overly sharp look the R6 produced. Although off topic, I’ve noted the R6 Mark II has smooth tones and detail rendering like the R3 from the samples out there.

DR+ and ALO modes can now be combined; having access to extra Dynamic range while maintaining perceptually natural shadows, with added lighting bump, isn’t small potatoes for SOOC output be it JPEGs or HEIF. This is genuinely useful, and clearly thought out for Canons HEIF ambitions (which Canon recommends using DR+ when shooting HEIF to capture the full depth the format is capable of).

New AWB improves OOC shots (and reduces post processor work for RAW handling), gone is the haggling with WB on the R5 in post, the other compliant I had with the R5; unless you get out a white picker in post and set your picture profile to fine detail, the R5 struggled just a touch with WB in my time with it. I don’t find myself tinkering with WB in post on the R3, unless it’s to choose ambient WB vs white priority, which is more a decision of ambiance, as it should be.

Straight out of camera colors on the R3 or using RAWs in Canon’s own DPP4 RAW processor are excellent. However the new WB sometimes gives Lightroom trouble resulting in occasionally “cool” shots that can be stubbornly difficult to fix when it shows up. You can mitigate this with a trip for the RAWs first to DPP4 and exporting straight to TIFF and then importing into Lightroom. This isn’t a common problem, but it shows up enough to be an annoyance much like the WB was on the R5. Hopefully Adobe gets around to tweaking their handling of R3 and presumably other newer Canon’s WB handling e.g. R6 Mark II. DXO’s PhotoLab doesn’t appear to share this problem, but, Lightroom’s “auto” lighting logic is smarter than DXO PL even in the latest version; this is the elephant in the room nobody talks about (as in theory you’re hand-tweaking every shot, but who wants to or has the time?). Hopefully DXO and Adobe continue to improve their products in both regards (WB handling for Adobe LR and automatic / AI / Deep Learning lighting adjustments for DXO PL).

Mixed lighting and artificial lighting proves no problems in ES mode, so long as Flickr detection is enabled, just as you would in the same conditions with mechanical shutter.

The R3 doesn’t have quite the punch (detail resolving power or color depth) at base ISO of the R5, however, by mid-range or high ISOs, it leaves the R5 behind in color fidelity and DR as previously discussed. Thus the R5 is a better “fair weather” camera in controlled lighting like a studio or Sunny16 where a landscape is desired in bright conditions or a strobe/flashgun in a studio is employed. The R3 by contrast just gets the shot, be it good or bad light.

Regarding Electronic Shutter, there appears to be no penalty on Dynamic range (DR) outside of base ISO for using ES. At base ISO, mechanical does have about a 1 stop advantage, which I concur in practice not just paper. I use ES as my primary drive mode due to shutter longevity (ES doesn’t tap the 500k mechanical shutter rating) and DR isn’t an issue across the ISO spectrum in ES (vs non stacked CMOS Canons) which the R3 has notably. Pretty much the only time I use mechanical shutter is if I’m deliberately taking a high-tone landscape shot; not my primary form of photography (event largely), and frankly, I’m not sure it’s necessary at that. I could in fact do without the mechanical shutter completely.

Rolling shutter is well controlled in ES, which is noteworthy for those not following the differences between FSI non-stacked CMOS on the R, RP, R6, R5, R7, R10 and R6 II. This shows up in video obviously but also makes ES suitable for stills now as I’ve been discussing. I wholeheartedly recommend ES shooting on the R3 due to both the improved autofocus rendered to it in ES vs Mechanical or EFCS, and the improved shutter longevity, potentially indefinite, making the R3 semi-immortal interestingly enough. I can’t fault ES image quality in any regard.

In practice, I can’t say I’ve noticed my R3 giving me any significant IQ benefit over my 20MP 1DX II. Maybe I should be looking more closely 😀.

cfieldgate wrote:

In practice, I can’t say I’ve noticed my R3 giving me any significant IQ benefit over my 20MP 1DX II. Maybe I should be looking more closely 😀.

Although I've never owned a 1DX II or III, I have to agree that the image quality of the 1DX series is much closer to the R3 than the R6. Just a hypothesis, but I gather this may be due to the AA filter implementation as the resolutions are very close on these models.

The first thing I noticed was better IQ than my 1dx …. but then I now use RF lenses and my pp is different, so very hard to pin down what has improved.

R3 files are sharper, cleaner and in my opinion (!) better colour. Plus higher DR.

Resolution looks higher to me.

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.

Interesting reading. I wonder how the IQ of the R6ii compares to the R3.

Foskito wrote:

Interesting reading. I wonder how the IQ of the R6ii compares to the R3.

As an owner of the R6 MK II and a R3 I would say there isn't much much to choose between the images from both cameras, but I think the R6 MK II images appear slightly sharper than the R3 ? maybe the AA filter isn't as strong ?

The DR of both cameras is very good but the R3 just edges the R6 II out.

I agree with the original poster who says the 24mp sensors perform more like a 30mp sensors, I said this from day one, I don't know how Canon do this but I'm glad they do.

Foskito wrote:

Interesting reading. I wonder how the IQ of the R6ii compares to the R3.

As a bystander only, but as one with an R3, I'll say the output of the R6 Mark II is very close to what comes out of the R3. There does appear to be some differences in sharpness algorithms according Canon, which I have noted in my study of the sample material out there.

https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/article/eng/eos-r6-mark-ii-canons-new-gamechanger-for-hybrid-shooters

"In addition to the increase in megapixel resolution over the EOS R6’s approximate 20.1 megapixels, the EOS R6 Mark II’s new image sensor is equipped with new sharpness processing capabilities, which further improves resolution and the rendering of details."

I've asked Canon for clarification on that statement and gotten crickets; was curious if I could duplicate the updated sharpness processing via post. I'm thinking this may be a reference to the AA filter though, which shows up in the R6 Mark II studio scene...

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eosr6&attr13_1=canon_eosr3&attr13_2=canon_eosr6ii&attr13_3=canon_eosr5&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&attr171_0=1&attr171_1=1&attr171_2=1&attr171_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=772&x=-0.216461271&y=-0.6246255

Moire is still there on the R6 Mark II, but it's greatly reduced. Note the lack of Moire on the R5 (could be due to 45MP) and sheer lack on the R3.

I've studied the R6 Mark II sensor, it looks really good. If you don't need 45MP, it's a winner.

Chimpy boy wrote:

Foskito wrote:

Interesting reading. I wonder how the IQ of the R6ii compares to the R3.

As an owner of the R6 MK II and a R3 I would say there isn't much much to choose between the images from both cameras, but I think the R6 MK II images appear slightly sharper than the R3 ? maybe the AA filter isn't as strong ?

Probably. I suspect there is some changes to the DIGICX itself IE sharpness algorithms themselves. Canon's been known to be, an offender there. The SOOC samples out there are just phenomenal.

https://popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&no=1138

The R6 Mark II gets a large number of the R3 perks (sensor wise), without the price tag.

I'm gonna touch on the handling later of the R3. This is where the R3, is something not just on paper, but in practice better for "pros".

The DR of both cameras is very good but the R3 just edges the R6 II out.

I agree with the original poster who says the 24mp sensors perform more like a 30mp sensors, I said this from day one, I don't know how Canon do this but I'm glad they do.

Ephemeris wrote:

RLight wrote:

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.

I made this point as a route to not using that resource specifically. Our own tests of the R6 Vs R5 meant that the r6 was effectively not suitable at all, and a backward step on the R we had before. Lots of talk of low light performance but we are interested in signal, detail at high ISO. The R5 was a clear winner of the 3 bodies. Have never tried an R3.

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.

Our work has told us this R6 wasn't better, and actually didn't provide as much usable signal as this R.

We only looked at the R6 as a second body becuase the R5 was almost impossible to get hold of. We decided to wait and live with one body.

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)

More is better that's the point.

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.

Could you show a test (which is what I asked) that shows some images, with detail, similar to the studio shot at ISO12800 and above (like I used the studio tool to include the 5Ds which looked to well outperform the R3) that meets your test criteria? I'm looked for usable signal detail comparisons and where one can resolve and one cannot.

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."

Sounds like it doesn't have suitable resolution?

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.

Events, engineering shots indoor and outdoor, macro, 8k video. Why would I use an R3? We can't live with that resolution and until I can see that it can provide the detail that the 5Ds, R, R5 can then why would it be helpful to me?

That's my point back at the start. I'm not having a moan at the R3 in the slightest, I bet if love to shoot with one if I could afford it as a hobby. It has some fabulous features I don't have. But maybe the R5 replacement will also?

R1; but, this means a 45MP+ sensor, with Stacked or Global. That means the former stays the same (ISO sensitivity; smaller pixels) but the SnR improves due to reduced noise from BSI. All to say the R1 will be "better" from the R5, but there's still going to be times where an R3 is a better tool than a R1 potentially.

It's a pretty darn good camera the R5 and the weak part of the chain in my shop is the user. Still learning how to get more from it.

I'm going to do an out-thoughts section of this mini series that I plan to touch on this. Folks like yourself are asking these questions, and I've asked them myself.

Ephemeris wrote:

RLight wrote:

Ephemeris wrote:

RLight wrote:

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.

I made this point as a route to not using that resource specifically. Our own tests of the R6 Vs R5 meant that the r6 was effectively not suitable at all, and a backward step on the R we had before. Lots of talk of low light performance but we are interested in signal, detail at high ISO. The R5 was a clear winner of the 3 bodies. Have never tried an R3.

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.

Our work has told us this R6 wasn't better, and actually didn't provide as much usable signal as this R.

We only looked at the R6 as a second body becuase the R5 was almost impossible to get hold of. We decided to wait and live with one body.

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)

More is better that's the point.

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.

Could you show a test (which is what I asked) that shows some images, with detail, similar to the studio shot at ISO12800 and above (like I used the studio tool to include the 5Ds which looked to well outperform the R3) that meets your test criteria? I'm looked for usable signal detail comparisons and where one can resolve and one cannot.

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."

Sounds like it doesn't have suitable resolution?

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.

Events, engineering shots indoor and outdoor, macro, 8k video. Why would I use an R3? We can't live with that resolution and until I can see that it can provide the detail that the 5Ds, R, R5 can then why would it be helpful to me?

That's my point back at the start. I'm not having a moan at the R3 in the slightest, I bet if love to shoot with one if I could afford it as a hobby. It has some fabulous features I don't have. But maybe the R5 replacement will also?

R1; but, this means a 45MP+ sensor, with Stacked or Global.

I don't follow why the R1 is mentioned as it doesn't exist and a hypothetical discussion is possibly not that valuable.

Because Canon will do a 45MP sensor (or more) which can resolve 8K, and it'll be stacked or global. All to say you're going to have the same challenges even when a R5 successor emerges.

I'm still not seeing the advantage for our work of the R3. I don't see it producing more detail, even than the R mostly.

I agree. The R3 and R6 II are on par with the R in resolving power. You're not missing the point. You'd need to punch say 16000 on an R5 for say an R3 to pull ahead, in my opinion, in sheer detail, not color or tones. The R3 pulls ahead of the R5 in terms of color easily early on though.

At 12800 the studio shots, which is all I have to compare look behind the 5Ds. I'm not saying it's a perfect comparison hence asking for another comparison.

That means the former stays the same (ISO sensitivity; smaller pixels) but the SnR improves due to reduced noise from BSI. All to say the R1 will be "better" from the R5, but there's still going to be times where an R3 is a better tool than a R1 potentially.

It's a pretty darn good camera the R5 and the weak part of the chain in my shop is the user. Still learning how to get more from it.

I'm going to do an out-thoughts section of this mini series that I plan to touch on this. Folks like yourself are asking these questions, and I've asked them myself.

Maybe some 102400 ISO setting and underexposed by 3 stops the R3 can pull more detail? But can it? Really?

No, it can pull more detail in my book by 16000. But, it can pull more colors and tones by 800, with less detail. This comes down to what medium you're outputting to your clientele and what ISOs you're generally shooting. If you're putting out say large prints constantly? R5 all the way. If say Smartphone, and you're hitting ISO12800 frequently? R3.

To put this more simply; the R5 "wins" across the board prior to ISO800. It has identical or better color depth, until 800. Afterwards the R3 pulls ahead meaning you're trading better detail rendering for poorer color rendering on the R5 past 800. I agree not just with the numbers, but in practice. See below.

I have also seen lower MP sensors showing an apparent higher resolution in prehistoric Canon cameras.

Nothing technical, but for fun I like to do “real-world” casual battles with my cameras and then make A3 and A4 prints. The last one was the 12.8mp 5D, 20mp 6D, 20mp R6, and 26mp RP.

When I open the raws in Lightroom, I can guess which shots are from the 5D because they have an extra touch of crispness and the prints, even the tabloids, look pretty much identical to all cameras. Nobody can tell the difference, but again, in real-world situations (which is how I use my cameras anyway).

I hope I can get my hands on an R6ii later this year and put it to the test :))

Have a great weekend!

I havent started using my m62 yet - just did a setup ala TDP's suggestions.

I noticed a clarity function that ive never seen on a canon body, in the setup menus. For processing, clarity is clarity of course...but would be nice to know what this exact function does to files (well, raw files)

Ephemeris wrote:

RLight wrote:

Ephemeris wrote:

RLight wrote:

Ephemeris wrote:

RLight wrote:

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.

I made this point as a route to not using that resource specifically. Our own tests of the R6 Vs R5 meant that the r6 was effectively not suitable at all, and a backward step on the R we had before. Lots of talk of low light performance but we are interested in signal, detail at high ISO. The R5 was a clear winner of the 3 bodies. Have never tried an R3.

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.

Our work has told us this R6 wasn't better, and actually didn't provide as much usable signal as this R.

We only looked at the R6 as a second body becuase the R5 was almost impossible to get hold of. We decided to wait and live with one body.

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)

More is better that's the point.

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.

Could you show a test (which is what I asked) that shows some images, with detail, similar to the studio shot at ISO12800 and above (like I used the studio tool to include the 5Ds which looked to well outperform the R3) that meets your test criteria? I'm looked for usable signal detail comparisons and where one can resolve and one cannot.

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."

Sounds like it doesn't have suitable resolution?

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.

Events, engineering shots indoor and outdoor, macro, 8k video. Why would I use an R3? We can't live with that resolution and until I can see that it can provide the detail that the 5Ds, R, R5 can then why would it be helpful to me?

That's my point back at the start. I'm not having a moan at the R3 in the slightest, I bet if love to shoot with one if I could afford it as a hobby. It has some fabulous features I don't have. But maybe the R5 replacement will also?

R1; but, this means a 45MP+ sensor, with Stacked or Global.

I don't follow why the R1 is mentioned as it doesn't exist and a hypothetical discussion is possibly not that valuable.

Because Canon will do a 45MP sensor (or more) which can resolve 8K, and it'll be stacked or global. All to say you're going to have the same challenges even when a R5 successor emerges.

Well it's already 8k and 45MP. Rolling shutter is decent compared to its rivals this conversation is about the R3 and that in struggling to see when it's going to resolve more information. If it can then I would give it a try.

The R5 successor, whatever that may be is a wait and see.

I'm still not seeing the advantage for our work of the R3. I don't see it producing more detail, even than the R mostly.

I agree. The R3 and R6 II are on par with the R in resolving power. You're not missing the point. You'd need to punch say 16000 on an R5 for say an R3 to pull ahead, in my opinion, in sheer detail, not color or tones. The R3 pulls ahead of the R5 in terms of color easily early on though.

They look behind from what I can see. The R6 was behind the R by a good step for us hence we waited for another r5. Can the R3 jump up here? That's my question.

As for colour, again im not sure becuase I don't have one to compare. I'd be surprised however but I and I'm sure others be interested. Maybe the wildlife folk could benefit and swap from an R5?

At 12800 the studio shots, which is all I have to compare look behind the 5Ds. I'm not saying it's a perfect comparison hence asking for another comparison.

That means the former stays the same (ISO sensitivity; smaller pixels) but the SnR improves due to reduced noise from BSI. All to say the R1 will be "better" from the R5, but there's still going to be times where an R3 is a better tool than a R1 potentially.

It's a pretty darn good camera the R5 and the weak part of the chain in my shop is the user. Still learning how to get more from it.

I'm going to do an out-thoughts section of this mini series that I plan to touch on this. Folks like yourself are asking these questions, and I've asked them myself.

Maybe some 102400 ISO setting and underexposed by 3 stops the R3 can pull more detail? But can it? Really?

No, it can pull more detail in my book by 16000. But, it can pull more colors and tones by 800, with less detail.

I'm not sure I really understand what that means. The amplitude of the colour? Colour accuracy possibly? (I see your looking at DxO bits per channel from a RAW file)

Yes, color accuracy. As your SnR diminishes, it's harder to interpret the signal.The aggregation of the pixels permits the R5 to hold unto a resolution advantage, despite having poor-er ISO performance, though, but color takes a hit. This shows up in skin tones, and "pop" an image has. You really have to look at a ton of samples or shoot yourself to get the feel for this. There's being able to read someone's newspaper text, and then there's the ambiance an event has. The R5 wins with reading a newspaper, the R3 wins in terms of gold staying gold and not turning white or grey, or pink staying pink, and not turning white. Etc. The quality of light, improves. Things like the color of someone's shirt under artificial light, at say ISO12800, may, and will differ between an R5 and R6 (and R3, R6 Mark II); dark blue may presented as blue and the like.

Dustin Abbott's review touches on this... Recommend a read...

https://dustinabbott.net/2021/12/canon-eos-r3-review/

https://dustinabbott.net/wp-content/gallery/canon-eos-r3-review/32-R5-ISO-Comparison.jpg

Note the saturation on the reds.

I did find a good reference for true detail vs ISO performance...

https://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/mirrorless-cameras/mirrorless-cameras-full-frame/canon-eos-r3/

https://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/mirrorless-cameras/mirrorless-cameras-full-frame/canon-eos-r5/

The R5 maintains resolution advantage, period, throughout the spectrum on paper. The author of that one used an RF 70-200 f/2.8L, which is arguably a better "bar" than the primes DPR uses which will outright favor higher resolution sensors. It's a more fair test. A good example as to why, my favorite lens, the RF 28-70 f/2L, doesn't benefit as much from 45MP as say a RF 50mm f/1.2L...

https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1139-canonrf2870f2?start=1

This comes down to what medium you're outputting to your clientele and what ISOs you're generally shooting. If you're putting out say large prints constantly? R5 all the way. If say Smartphone, and you're hitting ISO12800 frequently? R3.

Well, usually it's purely digital but enlarging to as much detail as possible.

What about the concept that the R3 is a bit noiser due to its sensor design? Is this correct?

Less noisy. R3 uses BSI, you can see in the TDP comparison tool this in effect vs the same 24MP, not BSI R6 Mark II.

To put this more simply; the R5 "wins" across the board prior to ISO800. It has identical or better color depth, until 800. Afterwards the R3 pulls ahead meaning you're trading better detail rendering for poorer color rendering on the R5 past 800. I agree not just with the numbers, but in practice. See below.

Iis this from DXO? I can only see part of the graph on my phone. What are the three horizontal dotted lines? (I can see it now on DxOs site and the dotted lines)

Yes, you can go to the website to see the metrics yourself, and would encourage you to. I linked it for that reason.