Canon R3 : I'm impressed!

Hi, I have a Canon R3 since december and I have to say that I'm really impressed. Until now I was on the Olympus side with a EM1 mk2 and PEN-f ( 2 great cameras) but after buying A Canon C70 last year I wanted to fully join the R-mount. Right now I only have 2 EF lenses ( A sigma ART 35MM 1.4 and a SIGMA 100-400mm ) but I plan to add a Ef 85MM 1.4 and the rumored RF 24L.

Things I love :

High Iso performance : this one is huge. Iso 25600 is perfectly usable. I like the grain pattern too (very fine grain), very easy to deal with on post prod.

Dynamic range : So much data on the shadows. I can open my shadow without any color shift or weirds stuff. I had to adjust my shooting style because the EM1 MK2 loved to be overexposed.

Color depth : I was surprised by this one because it's not discussed alot but the colors are So good! I can push my grading really far if I want and I still have deep and clean colors. I love how you get great tonality at low and high iso. Some cameras tend to look a bit desaturated at high iso this is not the case here. The White Balance is also very accurate.

EYE control AF : I was not sure I'd like it but this is a game changer for me. so much that the Joystick feels a bit dated now. I use that function 80% of the time it works perfectly ( I have contact lenses). On the same note the AF-ON button is great too.

Anti-flicker mode : Very useful function for indoor work. It works really great.

Viewfinder and back screen : Big viewfinder with nice colors and great resolution for that back screen. Excellent.

Electronic shutter : Full 14bit, no jello, same dynamic range ( did some test and I coul not spot differences in highlights and shadow recovery between electronic and mechanical shutter ). I only use Electronic shutter now.

Image quality : With that color depth, that high iso performance and the dynamic range it's no surprise that camera can produce really nice images. If you add the deadly accurate AF system into the mix that become a 10/10 for me.

As you can tell I'm very happy with my purchase. This is a great option for photojournalists and sport shooters.

some pictures from 1 event :

Iso 100, F1.4 1/640s Sigma ART 35mm f1.4

Iso 3200, F1.4 1/80s Sigma ART 35mm f1.4

Iso 100, F1.4 1/1600s  Sigma ART 35mm f1.4

Iso 100, F1.4 Sigma ART 35mm f1.4

Iso 100, F1.4 1/400s  Sigma ART 35mm f1.4

Iso 100, F1.4 Sigma ART 35mm f1.4

Great photos.

R3 is a fab upgrade from my 1dx and 5dsr.

just love the files, ease of use, speed of everything, the build, the amazing AF and unexpectedly the evf experience and no shutter …. the lighter weight is a bonus.

expro wrote:

Great photos.

R3 is a fab upgrade from my 1dx and 5dsr.

Don't you miss the resolution vs the 5DSR?  For me that's the reason why I would still use R5 even though lesser camera in so many ways..  Roll on the R1.

...and besides the camera I love the Sigma rendering. These Sigma Art lenses are a true treasure: optically great, built to hold out explosion and very reasonably priced.

Enjoy your R3 :-)!

It’s actually very funny for me because I was one of the first users of 5dsr and everyone on dpreview told me not to buy it as 50mp was no different to 20mp……

however I bought is an upgrade to my second body which was 5diii, which I thought was pretty poor….

however I soon learnt that my 1dx was better at everything and stopped using the 5dsr - weight being the only real advantage.

so long story short, for me higher mp has a certain look and I don’t want to compromise the R3 advantages to achieve that look.

But as you say, if an R1 is an R3 with higher mp I’ll probably add it. I hope it has other advantages too though. And no doubt will be extremely expensive!

There are 3 really great cameras out there that are vying for the best all around...the R3, A1 and Z9. The latter two have two advantages...first and foremost they have a large resolution advantage which for some kinds of shooting like wildlife, makes the R3 almost irrelevant. Second is price...the other cameras are less expensive. There is no reason the R3 should cost more than the others either new or used imo...and we are rapidly heading that way. I've seen big discounts on new ones and in the used market, all three cameras are now well below $5k. I've been tempted to try the R3 but the price never seemed to make sense to me. I guess I'm holding out for the R5ii which should be here later this spring. I like the smaller form factor.

Good to know you don’t rate the R3.

richard cohen wrote:

There are 3 really great cameras out there that are vying for the best all around...the R3, A1 and Z9. The latter two have two advantages...first and foremost they have a large resolution advantage which for some kinds of shooting like wildlife, makes the R3 almost irrelevant.

The Z9 has a 37.6% linear resolution advantage, and the A1 has a 44% linear resolution advantage. Whether that makes the R3 irrelevant obviously depends on your priorities, what wildlife you shoot, and what lenses you have. Given that I've seen plenty of amazing wildlife shots from the R3, I'm guessing that, for many wildlife shooters, at least, the R3 is far from irrelevant. For sports and event shooters, unless focal length limited, 24MP is more than enough.

Second is price...the other cameras are less expensive.

No they aren't. At least not when I checked just now. Given that you used the present tense, I assume you simply don't know how much the three cameras currently cost. The Nikon currently retails for around $5500, the Canon for $6000, and the Sony for $6500. This makes the Sony the clearly overpriced one out of the three, especially considering that it doesn't have a built-in grip. To get the Sony in a comparable configuration to the other two, you'd have to pay $6850 (the grip costs around $350). That's $850 more than the Canon, and $1350 more than the Nikon. Ouch!

There is no reason the R3 should cost more than the others

And it doesn't  cost more than the Sony, as I just showed. In fact it's $850 cheaper.

either new or used imo...and we are rapidly heading that way. I've seen big discounts on new ones and in the used market, all three cameras are now well below $5k. I've been tempted to try the R3 but the price never seemed to make sense to me. I guess I'm holding out for the R5ii which should be here later this spring. I like the smaller form factor.

So, to correct what you said, what we have is a resolution advantage for the Nikon and Sony. How significant that is depends on personal preference. We have a cost advantage for the Nikon, and, to a lesser extent the Canon, over the vastly overpriced Sony. The Canon has a burst speed advantage over both the others. It shoots 30fps in full RAW. The Sony can only do 30fps in lossy RAW, and the Nikon can only do 30fps in JPEG, and 20fps in RAW. The Canon is also the only one with eye-control AF. And the Canon is the lightest of the three. The Canon, with batteries, is 1015gm, the Sony, with grip and two batteries, is 1112gm, and the Nikon, with batteries, is 1340gm (this is all according to the specs listed on DPR for the cameras, and specs listed on B&H for the Nikon grip and extra battery).

Each camera has some advantages and some disadvantages over the other two. For me (not much of a wildlife shooter), if someone offered me one of these three cameras for free, I would unhesitatingly take the Canon. Likewise, if I had up to $6850 to spend, I would buy the Canon and use the other $850 for lenses, etc., rather than spend it all on the Sony, or spend $5500 on the Nikon and have $1350 left over for other things.

They are obviously all excellent cameras, and I wish I could justify spending that much on one of them, but the balance of features seems, to me at least, pretty heavily in favor of the Canon (unless MP is more important to you than pretty much anything else, as opposed to being one consideration among many).

richard cohen wrote:

There are 3 really great cameras out there that are vying for the best all around...the R3, A1 and Z9. The latter two have two advantages...first and foremost they have a large resolution advantage which for some kinds of shooting like wildlife, makes the R3 almost irrelevant.

I shoot wildlife with the R3 and it does a great job at it.

KiloHotelphoto wrote:

richard cohen wrote:

There are 3 really great cameras out there that are vying for the best all around...the R3, A1 and Z9. The latter two have two advantages...first and foremost they have a large resolution advantage which for some kinds of shooting like wildlife, makes the R3 almost irrelevant.

I shoot wildlife with the R3 and it does a great job at it.

Seems R3 works great for those who really use it. And does not work for Richard who only talks about it.

Yea a lot of people who have never shot it seem to know it better than those who have.

It's not perfect no camera is, but for my use it pairs great with the R5.

The one complaint that I always get a kick out of is its low resolution. People complain they don't have enough pixels to crop but they will crop an R5 image down to 24mp and be happy with that so it seems like they have more of a lens issue than megapixel one.

Whether something is expensive depends more on the wallet, which is individually filled.
If you reduce the cameras only to the MP, you might think that the R3 is expensive, even too expensive.
Fortunately, I was able to try out all three cameras, the A1 for several weeks and the Z9 for just about a week - I decided in favor of the R3. And yes, I initially had a similar argument regarding the MP. But even before deciding to buy, other points were more important and turned out in favor of the R3.
Of course, these points are subjective. Therefore, in my opinion, it makes little sense to list them here, similar to the statement that the camera is too expensive because of the lower number of MP.

Yes, if you just walk into a camera store without knowing current market values you are right...but the A1 and Z9 are available (if you know where to look) for big discounts. In the used market, both are about $4500 give or take. The R3 has been priced higher new and used, although those gaps are closing...as they should. The resolution advantage is a big deal for wildlife, pretty much regardless of what you shoot, and especially for birds. Otherwise they are similar in performance, all are fantastic.

Canon_Guy wrote:

KiloHotelphoto wrote:

richard cohen wrote:

There are 3 really great cameras out there that are vying for the best all around...the R3, A1 and Z9. The latter two have two advantages...first and foremost they have a large resolution advantage which for some kinds of shooting like wildlife, makes the R3 almost irrelevant.

I shoot wildlife with the R3 and it does a great job at it.

Seems R3 works great for those who really use it. And does not work for Richard who only talks about it.

I only talk about it because I shoot a lot of wildlife and BIF, and the resolution difference matters...a lot. I'm sure the R3 does work great for those who use it, but for most wildlife shooters, the Z9 and A1 are just all around better...especially because they have been lower priced in the real world. With big discounts available on both if you know where to look..and certainly in the used market. It's not that I'm a sony or nikon fan only as I shoot with an r5 and r6 along with a suite of canon lenses out to 600mm...

KiloHotelphoto wrote:

The one complaint that I always get a kick out of is its low resolution. People complain they don't have enough pixels to crop but they will crop an R5 image down to 24mp and be happy with that so it seems like they have more of a lens issue than megapixel one.

100% agree.  Those who crop, seems there's never enough resolution to satisfy.  One day we'll have 100MP FF bodies, and those same folks will be posting here that it's 'low res' and they're waiting for 200MP.

24MP in a "final image" is enough to do just about anything needed today with an image, including printing large.  Sure, more MP can be better, but 24MP will not suck even at large sizes.  And if you regularly print at such large sizes, you should quit playing around with this small 35mm format and get medium format (or larger) anyway 

To be fair the ‘need’ for more mp has been pushed by the type of functionality brought by mirrorless.

the hype is that now you too can shoot pro like results for sports and wildlife thanks to better af and faster fps etc. and cheap 600/800mm lenses…

Problem is most people can’t achieve this even when resorting to severe cropping! 
So more and more frustrated people end up bringing their ‘problems’ onto dpreview…

gipper51 wrote:

KiloHotelphoto wrote:

The one complaint that I always get a kick out of is its low resolution. People complain they don't have enough pixels to crop but they will crop an R5 image down to 24mp and be happy with that so it seems like they have more of a lens issue than megapixel one.

100% agree. Those who crop, seems there's never enough resolution to satisfy. One day we'll have 100MP FF bodies, and those same folks will be posting here that it's 'low res' and they're waiting for 200MP.

24MP in a "final image" is enough to do just about anything needed today with an image, including printing large. Sure, more MP can be better, but 24MP will not suck even at large sizes. And if you regularly print at such large sizes, you should quit playing around with this small 35mm format and get medium format (or larger) anyway

+1