evertdoorn

Sounds like an amazing camera. More than once I almost decided on getting one but I have a set of R5's and the next two years I need to save up a bit for some house related stuff so I'm waiting to ...

can you show the image? The scene captured determines the amount of detail registered and this can have a big influence on the size. If you have for example a very high key minimalistic image of a ...

I recently acquired the rf 400 2.8 and it’s - as expected - an excellent lens. Also works very well with extenders (autofocus works good). Obviously 600 is better if your subjects require that you ...

yes true. A reason I'm still eyeballing an R3 although I already have two R5's.. (or wait until a possible R1 comes?)

maybe at base iso, but it's not that great to be honest. Rather have that R6 (II) since that still gives you the option to use max dr with a mechanical shutter

yep, that's one of the appeals of the R3 above the R6 (II), plus the stacked sensor for those that shoot fast movement

I believe the ES of the R3 is 14 bit

sealed? well, I bought one RF lens this year and that was a 400mm 2.8 ;). It wasn't sealed.

Also posted this on FM but I recently acquired this lens and the extenders and yes they work great. Prefer the 2x stopped down a bit. Obviously the 2x takes a bit more of a hit in terms of IQ. AF ...

Understood. But knowing Canon, they would make either a really expensive (and heavy) L version, or a much cheaper lens, not something inbetween. of course it’s also possible to get an ef tamron ...

Depens on the final specs, but my current r5’s are still doing good. Would probably wait until the R1 comes to fruition and see what that brings so I can compare them

This is indeed a very valid argument. Also, 600 vs 500mm is indeed a bit more reach but with high megapixel bodies as the r5, an image has more cropping leeway too. So, a no doubt much ...

the very best option for wildlife of these camera's would be the R5 if you ask me. If you do specifically birds, the R7 might be considered.

should be good enough straight out of cam for sure

can't say much about the R3, but the lens itself is sharp enough on even the R5, out of the box. That's what a top quality L lens can do for you. I assume you're shooting jpg here? To get the most ...

or perhaps you had a negative exposure compensation dialed in/

on the R5 all my Godox stuff works great. Can easily mix V860 III's with II's, V1's, and AD200's

Or even the 85 f/2 which is nice and light. I use 24-70 and 70-200 mostly for events, coupled with the (indeed amazing) 50 1.2.

sorry to say, but this is utter nonsense. Coming from someone who has shot two R5's for two years now professionally, so several hundreds of thousands of images taken with the two cams combined. A ...

Indeed the R5 is doing very well with eye AF for birds. I do wish mirrorless camera's quickly get better with eye AF on (big) cats with spots or stripes; this is obivously an area which proves to ...