Canon R3 official details

[Venkatesh VT]

I am sure there will be soon a shoot out between A1 & R3 ( since Canon has nothing else to match) & I feel A1 will outscore R3( based on what I have read till now).
While A1 resulted in many switching brands to Sony that may not be the case with R3.
R3 at best seems to be a stop gap arrangement

 

[Darwin]

I am sure there will be soon a shoot out between A1 & R3 ( since Canon has nothing else to match) & I feel A1 will outscore R3( based on what I have read till now).
While A1 resulted in many switching brands to Sony that may not be the case with R3.
R3 at best seems to be a stop gap arrangement

I have to disagree, it looks like the R3 will have a better AF then the A1, and when the R1 comes out it may be kind. I am just hoping Z9 is what they say it will be.

 

[arbitrage]

I don't think you can have both. You can't read out 60 megapixels fast enough to do it with no blackout and 30 frames per second. Until maybe a global shutter comes along that reads out so rapidly it becomes possible.

Really? The A1 is already reading out 50MPs at 30FPS with no blackout. The A1 sensor at 50MPs is already reading faster than the R3 at 24MPs. I can't see how 10MPs more is going to be a big limiting factor? Global shutter will likely show up first on much lower MP sensors like 20MPs. A high MP global shutter sensor is a long ways off.

 

[arbitrage]

I have to disagree, it looks like the R3 will have a better AF then the A1, and when the R1 comes out it may be kind. I am just hoping Z9 is what they say it will be.

Why do you think the R3 will have better AF than the A1? The R5 is a ways behind in a few critical areas (I've owned both). In fact for picking up subjects over complicated backgrounds and subjects moving from simple backgrounds to complicated backgrounds the R5 is garbage. Even the 2017 A9 is much better and the A1 more so.

Unless Canon totally re-wrote the underlying AF system with the R3, I can't see how it would even match the A1. It looks like the R3 has certainly updated the AF and made it faster and some say giving a higher % of keepers in a burst. But my gut feeling is the underlying problems with initial subject acquisition against backgrounds is still going to be there on the R3.

I'll be getting an R3 and RF600/4 from CPS to test drive once they have them available to see for myself. I'll be pleasantly surprised if the R3 can do what the A1 can do. The A1 is uncanny on the small, erratic subjects it can pick up even against the most complicated backgrounds. All the R5 does is focus on the background.

 

[la551ve3]

So happy I made the decision not to wait for things that might not come (or very late) or don't meet my expectations or specifications and bought the Sony A1 with 400mm 2.8 + 1.4 TC a month ago. Great combo, best camera I ever had in my hands ! Enjoy it every day I go out in the field or to a bird hide. And the menu system is really not as difficult as many say. The moment you know what the abbreviations stand for, it's a piece of cake. Like it even beter now than the Nikon menu ! Some pictures I took the past weeks.

View attachment 24841

Holy crap. Did that Cormorant actually swallow that fish?

Never mind. Didn't see the posts directly after the one I quoted

 

[Venkatesh VT]

I have to disagree, it looks like the R3 will have a better AF then the A1, and when the R1 comes out it may be kind. I am just hoping Z9 is what they say it will be.

As of now R1 is a myth & Canon has brought our R3 only to keep Canon shooters in its fold.More over R3 seems to onlky for sports compared to A1 which can do sports & wild life thanks to higher MP.
Also Canon (apart from pricey primes) has not though it fit to bring out a 200-600 zoom

 

[FB101]

As of now R1 is a myth & Canon has brought our R3 only to keep Canon shooters in its fold.More over R3 seems to onlky for sports compared to A1 which can do sports & wild life thanks to higher MP.
Also Canon (apart from pricey primes) has not though it fit to bring out a 200-600 zoom

i don’t understand the story being told that the R3 is not for wildlife because it’s only 24mp. No question, I personally prefer 45 or 50mp for wildlife but there are tons of amazing shots taken with the 1D, 1Dx, D4s/5/6, A9... that are 24mp or less.What you lose with 24mp is the ability to crop heavily, not the ability to take awesome shots.

Don’t get me wrong, I would have much preferred to see the R3 with 32mp or even more but 24mp works - you just need to get closer to your target and carry bigger lenses

The R3 is clearly not a flagship anymore but launched 2 years ago it would have blown everybody‘s mind by how far ahead of anything else it would have been. If this was a camera Nikon launched today, available within weeks, I’d add one right next to my D850.

Regarding the 200-600, I hear you but considering they can’t supply the 100-500, the 24-70 or 70-200 right now, it’s probably wiser that they don’t put even more stress on their supply chain until it recovers.

 

[Steve]

i don’t understand the story being told that the R3 is not for wildlife because it’s only 24mp. No question, I personally prefer 45 or 50mp for wildlife but there are tons of amazing shots taken with the 1D, 1Dx, D4s/5/6, A9... that are 24mp or less.What you lose with 24mp is the ability to crop heavily, not the ability to take awesome shots.

Don’t get me wrong, I would have much preferred to see the R3 with 32mp or even more but 24mp works - you just need to get closer to your target and carry bigger lenses

The R3 is clearly not a flagship anymore but launched 2 years ago it would have blown everybody‘s mind by how far ahead of anything else it would have been. If this was a camera Nikon launched today, available within weeks, I’d add one right next to my D850.

Regarding the 200-600, I hear you but considering they can’t supply the 100-500, the 24-70 or 70-200 right now, it’s probably wiser that they don’t put even more stress on their supply chain until it recovers.

I agree. The vast majority of my images to date have been with cameras 24MP and less. With proper field technique and lenses, I find that 24MP is enough, although I still say the sweet spot for wildlife is probably more like 30MP.

 

[Doug Herr]

i don’t understand the story being told that the R3 is not for wildlife because it’s only 24mp. No question, I personally prefer 45 or 50mp for wildlife but there are tons of amazing shots taken with the 1D, 1Dx, D4s/5/6, A9... that are 24mp or less.What you lose with 24mp is the ability to crop heavily, not the ability to take awesome shots.

I agree. Many of by best-sellers were made with a 10MP camera, however that doesn't mean I'd continue to use that camera when something better is available. More pixels lowers several of the barriers I faced with 10MP and 24MP cameras.

For the kind of photos I make and speaking only for myself, 24MP isn't interesting in 2021. The R3 isn't for me but I expect others with different personal styles and personal preferences to make great photos with it.

 

[FB101]

I agree. Many of by best-sellers were made with a 10MP camera, however that doesn't mean I'd continue to use that camera when something better is available. More pixels lowers several of the barriers I faced with 10MP and 24MP cameras.

For the kind of photos I make and speaking only for myself, 24MP isn't interesting in 2021. The R3 isn't for me but I expect others with different personal styles and personal preferences to make great photos with it.

Completely agree and as I stated, I'd far prefer something in the range of 32MP or better. But I saw a number of videos by so called influencers stating that it won't be good for wildlife because of 24MP and that simply is not true. It's not ideal for wildlife considering the alternatives (even Canon's own R5) but it's still will be in the top 5 options for wildlife all brands considered, that's far from "unfit".

 

[Venkatesh VT]

i don’t understand the story being told that the R3 is not for wildlife because it’s only 24mp. No question, I personally prefer 45 or 50mp for wildlife but there are tons of amazing shots taken with the 1D, 1Dx, D4s/5/6, A9... that are 24mp or less.What you lose with 24mp is the ability to crop heavily, not the ability to take awesome shots.

Don’t get me wrong, I would have much preferred to see the R3 with 32mp or even more but 24mp works - you just need to get closer to your target and carry bigger lenses

The R3 is clearly not a flagship anymore but launched 2 years ago it would have blown everybody‘s mind by how far ahead of anything else it would have been. If this was a camera Nikon launched today, available within weeks, I’d add one right next to my D850.

Regarding the 200-600, I hear you but considering they can’t supply the 100-500, the 24-70 or 70-200 right now, it’s probably wiser that they don’t put even more stress on their supply chain until it recovers.

As some one has said elsewhere that they have shot with even 10 Mp camera & taken large prints with no issues.
How ever lot of things have changed & we do have good choices thanks to technology

I myself use D 500 & D 850 with 500 PF(i have two of them).
While i do both wild life & bird photography i do comparitively more birding (mostly hand holding) & the most challenging is shooting small birds like sunbirds in bad light & invariably the ISO goes up to 4000 or more
(I am sharing an image of a purple sunbird shot with D 850 + 500 PF yesterday with 1/400 & 4000 ISO & denoised with Topaz denoise.I never got such quality with D 500 in similar situations)

While i have taken lot of very good shots with D 500 specially action shots .i did find that it is D 850 images when cropped (with high iso) which comes a topper compared to D 500 (after using noise reduction software). I expect the same with A1 & R3 (since the two camears being compared are A1 & R3 based on their MP )
R3 is priced just 500 $ less than A1 & why would any one select R3 when A1 can do every thing that R3 can do & more (discounting the eye tracking which is supposed to be reintroduced with R3)
(I also am in the photo-craft business where my images get printed in variety of surfaces including paper,metal,glass,canvas,fabric,enamel, laminates, PVC,Magnets & even floor mats)
Hence high MP with similar costs is a no brainer for me
I do agree that mine is a worst case sceanrio .How ever this high MP (keeping similar costs & other featurs ) choise does make one's life easier

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[FB101]

As some one has said elsewhere that they have shot with even 10 Mp camera & taken large prints with no issues.
How ever lot of things have changed & we do have good choices thanks to technology

I myself use D 500 & D 850 with 500 PF(i have two of them).
While i do both wild life & bird photography i do comparitively more birding (mostly hand holding) & the most challenging is shooting small birds like sunbirds in bad light & invariably the ISO goes up to 4000 or more
(I am sharing an image of a purple sunbird shot with D 850 + 500 PF yesterday with 1/400 & 4000 ISO & denoised with Topaz denoise.I never got such quality with D 500 in similar situations)

While i have taken lot of very good shots with D 500 specially action shots .i did find that it is D 850 images when cropped (with high iso) which comes a topper compared to D 500 (after using noise reduction software). I expect the same with A1 & R3 (since the two camears being compared are A1 & R3 based on their MP )
R3 is priced just 500 $ less than A1 & why would any one select R3 when A1 can do every thing that R3 can do & more (discounting the eye tracking which is supposed to be reintroduced with R3)
(I also am in the photo-craft business where my images get printed in variety of surfaces including paper,metal,glass,canvas,fabric,enamel, laminates, PVC,Magnets & even floor mats)
Hence high MP with similar costs is a no brainer for me
I do agree that mine is a worst case sceanrio .How ever this high MP (keeping similar costs & other featurs ) choise does make one's life easier



View attachment 24921

Interesting question you raise. I also shoot D850, D500 and 500pf and I fully agree with your assessment that files from the D850 often end up delivering higher quality pictures but I am not sure it is a function of resolution.
First, the D500 is actually higher resolution than the D850 - in the sense that it has a higher pixel density (more like 51MP full frame equivalent) so it has the theoretical ability to capture more finer details than the D850 at same reproduction ratio.
Yet that's not how it plays out in real life (as we have both experienced) so my guess is that the difference comes more from sensor technology and especially how the two sensors clip. The D500 is an older generation sensor that is optimized for speed while the D850 is a newer BSI sensor optimized for DR.

That said, to your point, the A1 seems like a superior camera in almost every possible way - except if you already own a lot of Canon EF glass, in which case the R3 looks pretty darn attractive.

 

[Venkatesh VT]

Interesting question you raise. I also shoot D850, D500 and 500pf and I fully agree with your assessment that files from the D850 often end up delivering higher quality pictures but I am not sure it is a function of resolution.
First, the D500 is actually higher resolution than the D850 - in the sense that it has a higher pixel density (more like 51MP full frame equivalent) so it has the theoretical ability to capture more finer details than the D850 at same reproduction ratio.
Yet that's not how it plays out in real life (as we have both experienced) so my guess is that the difference comes more from sensor technology and especially how the two sensors clip. The D500 is an older generation sensor that is optimized for speed while the D850 is a newer BSI sensor optimized for DR.

That said, to your point, the A1 seems like a superior camera in almost every possible way - except if you already own a lot of Canon EF glass, in which case the R3 looks pretty darn attractive.

Yeah.I agree with you .I did mention earlier that R3 is for existing Canon shooters (I myself am planning for A1 & Sony 200-600 since i dont expect to see Z9 any time soon)

 

[abc123brian]

As of now R1 is a myth & Canon has brought our R3 only to keep Canon shooters in its fold.More over R3 seems to onlky for sports compared to A1 which can do sports & wild life thanks to higher MP.
Also Canon (apart from pricey primes) has not though it fit to bring out a 200-600 zoom

I think you’re overlooking a lot and only focused on MP which aren’t quite as important as is being implied. There doesn’t appear to be any limitation placed on 30fps with the R3, the R3 has dual pixel technology that may offer some advantages in AF, the eye control AF looks like it could be very useful in many situations. For me, in most cases, 24MP will be plenty. I’m generally able to get very close to my subjects and fill the frame. The R3 should work well for just about all photography types, including wildlife. For $500 more you get the A1, but if you want two identical bodies, that is now $1000 more, and if you like battery grips, that is now even more. while I personally would have preferred 200-600mm, Canon decided that it would do a 100-500mm instead. For some it will work better. It’s good to have choices and options.

 

[Woodyg3]

Just in case anyone is interested in some limited hands on with a preproduction model.

I'm interested in the eye control feature, which I always thought was a pie in the sky kind of wish for photographers.

 

[Tiago C]

For those looking for accurate info about the R3, Gordon Laing has posted two of the best (p)review videos about it on YT.

 

[bleirer]

I saw a video where they were talking about shutter speed. I had to rewind because I thought I misheard. Nope, it was 1/64000 of a second using electronic shutter. Yup, not 1/6400 but 1/64000.

 

[EricBowles]

There are a number of positives with the 24 MP sensor. The smaller files with larger photosites are a little better under high ISO/low light conditions. It's much better for video - particularly 4k and 8k video as well as higher frame rates. 24 MP allows faster frame rates and write speed - along with faster buffer clearing when paired with a CFExpress card. Even the EVF is faster and more accurate with a 24 MP sensor. The smaller sensor has a faster readout and faster EVF.

At a pro level, the need to crop is usually lower in priority to the other benefits of high frame rate and file size. Most are shooting subjects tighter and filling the frame. With small in the frame subjects, they use a longer lens and/or get closer.

The R3 looks like an outstanding camera. It's priced competitively and provides premium performance. The Eye AF on the R5/R6 is already good, and the new Eye Control AF promises to be interesting.

It's interesting how we tend to pick one or two features to evaluate a new camera when there are lots of enhancements and advantages. There are a lot of very good cameras available today, but it really boils down to the photographer's ability to use these tools to make great images. No doubt the Z9 will enter the fray shortly with similar discussion. At the end of the day, the advantage of a single feature is short lived because new models from competitors will have that feature and more.

 

[bleirer]

Here's something I don't get about the eye control. Even on my lowly Canon RP, in tracking mode you can grab the subject at the center focus area, then recompose while the camera holds on to the subject.

So what practical use will the eye control at be? And by the way, what are they bouncing off my retina to do it?

 

[arbitrage]

Here's something I don't get about the eye control. Even on my lowly Canon RP, in tracking mode you can grab the subject at the center focus area, then recompose while the camera holds on to the subject.

So what practical use will the eye control at be? And by the way, what are they bouncing off my retina to do it?

The only difference is it is probably a little faster to just look at a target rather than aiming a centre point and recomposing (if necessary). If you are using a centre point and then letting tracking take over and then want to focus on a different subject in your FOV you likely will have to do a quick movement to aim the centred point at the new target and then engage tracking. With Eye-control you just let off the shutter (or AF-ON) look towards the different subject and engage AF again (shutter or AF-ON). If it is precise enough it will be faster in scenarios where you want to move between different subjects in the frame (eg. runners coming at you, look at one, AF, fire a few shots, look to the next, AF, fire...etc).

Bouncing off your retina are 8 IR LED lights. I asked an ophthalmologist (and also hardcore wildlife photographer) his opinion and he did a bit of research and came back with the opinion that it is safe. And it would be highly unlikely Canon wouldn't have had to have this type of thing cleared anyways for safety.

 

[FB101]

I read somewhere the new eye piloted AF sensor was developed by canon’s medical division. That’s a cool story if true, but I only saw it once so not sure it’s accurate. After they announced the feature the rumor was it came from their military optics division which seems equally as likely

 

[Don'sPhotoStream]

The heck with the R3, R5, R6, a9, & a1… when I get my Z9, it will blow away all those cameras. I've already told my wife where I want her to hang it on my headstone. RIP Nikon.

 

[Deleted member 115]

How well does the 100-500 perform in low light on birds? It is $600 more than Sony 200-600. Probably should factor this into any decision making if that’s the lens you choose.
500mm at f/7.1 vs 600mm at f/6.3
Less pixels density
External zoom
I don’t know much about Canon but I do know the 200-600 Sony is very very fast autofocus.
Anyone more familiar, feel free to comment please

 

[bleirer]

Really? The A1 is already reading out 50MPs at 30FPS with no blackout. The A1 sensor at 50MPs is already reading faster than the R3 at 24MPs. I can't see how 10MPs more is going to be a big limiting factor? Global shutter will likely show up first on much lower MP sensors like 20MPs. A high MP global shutter sensor is a long ways off.

It is truly an amazing camera, but check this out from the review linked below:

Of course, there are some caveats to the Alpha 1's eye-catching burst specs. In order to achieve the full 30fps burst rate, you first must use the electronic or silent shutter. The camera's mechanical shutter is still limited to just 10fps, much like the A7R IV. Also, you can't capture images at 30fps using uncompressed RAW or the new lossless compressed RAW image formats. Instead, you'll have to use JPEGs or lossy compressed RAW. Otherwise, with these other image quality settings, like uncompressed RAW+JPEG, the Alpha 1 will "only" shoot up to 20fps -- which, to be honest, is plenty fast for almost any sports or action subject.

Sony A1 Review

The new Sony A1, the ultimate Sony full-frame camera? 50MP, 30fps shooting, 8K video & more See our Sony Alpha A1 preview for all the details!

www.imaging-resource.com

 

[Deleted member 115]

It is truly an amazing camera, but check this out from the review linked below:

Of course, there are some caveats to the Alpha 1's eye-catching burst specs. In order to achieve the full 30fps burst rate, you first must use the electronic or silent shutter. The camera's mechanical shutter is still limited to just 10fps, much like the A7R IV. Also, you can't capture images at 30fps using uncompressed RAW or the new lossless compressed RAW image formats. Instead, you'll have to use JPEGs or lossy compressed RAW. Otherwise, with these other image quality settings, like uncompressed RAW+JPEG, the Alpha 1 will "only" shoot up to 20fps -- which, to be honest, is plenty fast for almost any sports or action subject.

Sony A1 Review

The new Sony A1, the ultimate Sony full-frame camera? 50MP, 30fps shooting, 8K video & more See our Sony Alpha A1 preview for all the details!

www.imaging-resource.com

20 fps lossless raw is killer