# Jeff Cable talks about what it’s like to shoot with the Canon EOS R3 as a pro



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 21, 2021)

> Dan Havlik at Digital Photo Pro had the chance to interview Jeff Cable, probably the most talked-about Canon shooter at the Tokyo Olympic Games for his work with the Canon EOS R3.
> Jeff gives a pretty glowing review of the Canon EOS R3 experience, but without the marketing speak, as there were a few things such as the eye-controlled AF that didn’t hit the mark all of the time.
> *Preorder:* Canon EOS R3 Body
> *Q: How was the Eye Control Autofocus (AF) feature on the R3?*
> *Jeff Cable:* Eye Control worked well but there were some environments where it was more effective...



Continue reading...


----------



## jam05 (Sep 21, 2021)

When there is an SDexpress card used the speed will change dramatically. Canon is an Executive Board member of the SD Association. 








Executive Members | SD Association







www.sdcard.org


----------



## carlosalberto (Sep 21, 2021)

Jeff has given us the reason to those who have argued that the R3 should have two CFexpress slots


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 21, 2021)

I do not get why he shot RAW at all.
There could not have been very much RAW image support at the time.


----------



## dcm (Sep 21, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I do not get why he shot RAW at all.
> There could not have been very much RAW image support at the time.



On his blog, he said he wanted to go back after the Olympics when the software is available to process some of the best photos.


----------



## Steve S (Sep 21, 2021)

I have always been under the impression a RAW file includes an embedded jpg so there would be very little if any saving in shooting RAW to both cards.


----------



## TimKamppinen (Sep 21, 2021)

Steve S said:


> I have always been under the impression a RAW file includes an embedded jpg so there would be very little if any saving in shooting RAW to both cards.


I think the embedded jpeg is more compressed and presumably the jpegs he was writing to the second card were at the highest quality settings.


----------



## carlosalberto (Sep 21, 2021)

slclick said:


> I guess you win and Canon's engineers are wondering why they didn't listen to the CR forum.


1 I have never questioned Canon engineers, nor do I now.
2 Engineers don't establish my needs.
3 Your answer is typical of a troll, no matter how many messages and age you have in CR.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (Sep 21, 2021)

I would think that there should be a few more positives about this camera besides eye control focus and simulated shutter sound...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

carlosalberto said:


> Jeff has given us the reason to those who have argued that the R3 should have two CFexpress slots


He didn’t give it to us, that reason has been around since the 1DII that had CF and SD slots and launched two decades ago. Maybe it’s news to you, though.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 21, 2021)

I’ve never been a fan of dual media types in a camera, but that’s just an annoyance more than a physical limitation. I seldom shoot any of my cameras RAW+JPEG to both cards, but if that’s something you commonly do, then I can understand why it would be an issue for you. Overall, I think it was a mistake to do that mainly because of the performance limitation it imposes as well as the market the camera is in. If you came from a 1DX, Mark II or Mark III….well now you have to buy SD cards! If you’re coming from a Mark III then you probably already have CFExpress. Either way, you have enough money to buy a $100 64GB card or $175 for a 128GB if you plan to shoot just photos. Or you can splurge on the higher capacities. Heck, I remember a free CFast card used to come with the 1DX Mark II when it came out! I never got my damn free reader!!! Haha

Canon and other brands should just make us rip off the bandaid here…only the new format - and here’s why: I have now run into several people shooting the D850 who never bought a CFExpress card and just shoot with their camera as a single card because the readers are “too expensive” or they don’t want to buy them because they have SD cards already. So there is something to be said about people moving from one generation of camera to the next not adopting or investing in new media. It’s likely that some R3s will meet the same fate,but I feel like that’s a totally different market.

Oh well, this doesn’t bother me personally but I understand it will others. I use the dual cars more for utility and file organization with photos on one and video on the other…but it really would make more sense for this camera to have 2 of the same. I’m sure Tony Northrop is pumped to insert some old, slow, corrupted SD card into that slot and then claim the camera is terrible when shooting to 2 cards. LOL


----------



## bergstrom (Sep 21, 2021)

carlosalberto said:


> Jeff has given us the reason to those who have argued that the R3 should have two CFexpress slots



That's it for me! Holding out for the R3ii


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 21, 2021)

It would be great to have a YouTube video from someone like this rather than someone who is a YT personality first, a photographer 2nd and sports photographer, a few times a year.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> I’ve never been a fan of dual media types in a camera, but that’s just an annoyance more than a physical limitation. ... I use the dual cars more for utility and file organization with photos on one and video on the other…but it really would make more sense for this camera to have 2 of the same.


My first (and only, so far) dual-slot camera was the 1D X, and I liked the fact that the slots are identical. I record RAW simultaneously to both cards as a failsafe, so I always have at least two copies of every image. Once an image is onto my MacBook Pro, within an hour it's backed up to a NAS with RAID 1, and within a week there's also an offsite backup on an HDD. Having said that, I've never lost any data to card or drive failure. 

The bigger concern for me is the differential write speeds. But looking at Bryan/TDP's testing, the R6 can do 20 fps for 8.3 seconds writing RAW to dual SD cards, which equates to ~6 seconds on the R3. That's a much longer burst than I typically capture, so for me I don't think writing RAW to CFe+SD will be a problem. If it is, I can add the Image Copy command to MyMenu, shoot to the CFe only and duplicate the images to the SD card during down time.


----------



## djack41 (Sep 21, 2021)

Bet most wildlife shooters will pass on the R3. The 24 MP sensor is the deal killer. If it had 45 MP, it truly would be the do-all camera from portraits to BIF. Oh well, the R5 has been awesome.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

djack41 said:


> Bet most wildlife shooters will pass on the R3. The 24 MP sensor is the deal killer. If it had 45 MP, it truly would be the do-all camera from portraits to BIF. Oh well, the R5 has been awesome.


Bet wildlife shooters that can afford the R3 will buy one. But I agree that most wildlife shooters will pass – because of the price tag not the MP count.


----------



## carlosalberto (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> He didn’t give it to us, that reason has been around since the 1DII that had CF and SD slots and launched two decades ago. Maybe it’s news to you, though.


What was expressed was due to the amount of negative comments for maintaining that I would not buy this camera due to not having a double CF slot.
I know the story, I still have a canon with an FD mount and a 1dMkIII, with a CF and SD slot.


----------



## Juangrande (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> My first (and only, so far) dual-slot camera was the 1D X, and I liked the fact that the slots are identical. I record RAW simultaneously to both cards as a failsafe, so I always have at least two copies of every image. Once an image is onto my MacBook Pro, within an hour it's backed up to a NAS with RAID 1, and within a week there's also an offsite backup on an HDD. Having said that, I've never lost any data to card or drive failure.
> 
> The bigger concern for me is the differential write speeds. But looking at Bryan/TDP's testing, the R6 can do 20 fps for 8.3 seconds writing RAW to dual SD cards, which equates to ~6 seconds on the R3. That's a much longer burst than I typically capture, so for me I don't think writing RAW to CFe+SD will be a problem. If it is, I can add the Image Copy command to MyMenu, shoot to the CFe only and duplicate the images to the SD card during down time.


“Image copy command”!? Somehow I’ve never noticed that before. Is tha feature in all Canon pro and prosumer bodies? I have the R5.


----------



## melgross (Sep 21, 2021)

Steve S said:


> I have always been under the impression a RAW file includes an embedded jpg so there would be very little if any saving in shooting RAW to both cards.


These are more about thumbnails for quick running through the files.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> My first (and only, so far) dual-slot camera was the 1D X, and I liked the fact that the slots are identical. I record RAW simultaneously to both cards as a failsafe, so I always have at least two copies of every image. Once an image is onto my MacBook Pro, within an hour it's backed up to a NAS with RAID 1, and within a week there's also an offsite backup on an HDD. Having said that, I've never lost any data to card or drive failure.
> 
> The bigger concern for me is the differential write speeds. But looking at Bryan/TDP's testing, the R6 can do 20 fps for 8.3 seconds writing RAW to dual SD cards, which equates to ~6 seconds on the R3. That's a much longer burst than I typically capture, so for me I don't think writing RAW to CFe+SD will be a problem. If it is, I can add the Image Copy command to MyMenu, shoot to the CFe only and duplicate the images to the SD card during down time.


I did not know that you could copy files from one card to another in camera using a Image Copy command in MyMenu. This is a great workaround where one captures RAW files to CFExpress and then backs up files as need. Thank you for pointing this out!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> “Image copy command”!? Somehow I’ve never noticed that before. Is tha feature in all Canon pro and prosumer bodies? I have the R5.


I think all of the dual-slot cameras have it. My 1D X does.



Canon Knowledge Base - Copying Images on the EOS R5.



[All images] > [Skip image and continue]


----------



## Billybob (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bet wildlife shooters that can afford the R3 will buy one. But I agree that most wildlife shooters will pass – because of the price tag not the MP count.


Count me out. I have an R3 on order but will almost certainly cancel. I'm waiting to see what the Z9 brings to the table. I'm looking at some of my recent R5 wildlife shots, how much cropping was required to get the image I want, and how much detail I maintained. I crave the R3's improved performance but not the lost detail. I hope that I can get both detailed cropping and high performance in a 45MP Z9 with R3/A1 speed and AF performance. 

"Once you've done 45, you can't go back!"


----------



## Steve S (Sep 21, 2021)

melgross said:


> These are more about thumbnails for quick running through the files.


A thumbnail you can zoom into to pixel peep, or are you suggesting it reprocesses the RAW file when you zoom in, if you look at the size of your RAW files I think you will see they differ largely by the size of a jpg version.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 21, 2021)

TimKamppinen said:


> I think the embedded jpeg is more compressed and presumably the jpegs he was writing to the second card were at the highest quality settings.


Jeff wrote on his blog that he was shooting RAW+JPEG to the same or both cards. The SD slot is so slow that he yanked the SD card for the water polo finals to avoid risking key images.

*EDIT:* the Digital Photo Pro interview is essentially just a repost of Jeff's own blog post. No point in reading both.



> I always write RAW images to both cards when I am shooting (for redundancy), and since the SD card is so much slower than the CFexpress card, I have numerous times when I filled the camera buffer and missed some great shots. For the USA Water Polo women's gold medal game, I decided to pull the SD card and shoot to just the CFexpress card. I could not risk having buffer issues during this key game!
> 
> I should mention that I shot the entire Olympics in RAW+JPEG mode, since I could not easily open a Canon R3 RAW file and had to work with the JPEGs for the whole Games. I wanted to capture the RAW files, since I plan on re-editing the best photos from the RAW files in the weeks to come, once Adobe has added the R3 to Adobe Camera RAW. Shooting RAW+JPEG really slows things down, and I don't plan on shooting that way in the future.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

Steve S said:


> A thumbnail you can zoom into to pixel peep, or are you suggesting it reprocesses the RAW file when you zoom in, if you look at the size of your RAW files I think you will see they differ largely by the size of a jpg version.


A .CR3 file from the EOS R includes a 1620x1080 jpg file. That’s 1.8 MP and is smaller than the smallest in-camera jpg setting (Small 2, 2400x1600).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

Billybob said:


> "Once you've done 45, you can't go back!"


Perhaps, but I don’t think Canon is targeting the R3 for R5 owners. There are a lot more 5DIII/IV shooters out there, and a smaller number of 1D X (II/III) shooters, that are the more likely targets.

It’s a common refrain on this forum that, “Mark N of a camera isn’t much of an improvement over Mark N-1 in terms of [my favorite feature], so I’ll pass.” What people fail to grasp is that Canon is targeting owners of the Mark N-2 and earlier versions, as well as owners of ‘lower’ camera lines (xxD to xD, etc.). As I have often stated, Canon has data on who buys what and when, so for example they know how many 5DIV cameras were bought by 5DIII owners vs. those with a 5DII, 7D, 80D, etc. I suspect the latter group is much larger than the former.


----------



## maulanawale (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bet wildlife shooters that can afford the R3 will buy one. But I agree that most wildlife shooters will pass – because of the price tag not the MP count.


Absolutely agree

If I could afford an R3 and an R1 (if and when) 24 Mpx wouldn't hold me back in the slightest.

Having to pick and choose, it's only sensible for my shallow pockets to wait and see what's to come.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 21, 2021)

jam05 said:


> When there is an SDexpress card used the speed will change dramatically. Canon is an Executive Board member of the SD Association.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Funnily enough, I was only thinking about this a couple of days ago.

Has Canon mentioned anything about R3 and SDexpress compatibility does anyone know?


----------



## Billybob (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps, but I don’t think Canon is targeting the R3 for R5 owners. There are a lot more 5DIII/IV shooters out there, and a smaller number of 1D X (II/III) shooters, that are the more likely targets.
> 
> It’s a common refrain on this forum that, “Mark N of a camera isn’t much of an improvement over Mark N-1 in terms of [my favorite feature], so I’ll pass.” What people fail to grasp is that Canon is targeting owners of the Mark N-2 and earlier versions, as well as owners of ‘lower’ camera lines (xxD to xD, etc.). As I have often stated, Canon has data on who buys what and when, so for example they know how many 5DIV cameras were bought by 5DIII owners vs. those with a 5DII, 7D, 80D, etc. I suspect the latter group is much larger than the former.


No disagreement here. I've come to term with the clear fact that the R3 was not designed for me. Rather, my previous post was a response to your implication that the only wildlife photogs who wouldn't want the R3 were those who couldn't afford. On the contrary, there are quite a few of us wildlife photogs who are taking a hard pass on the R3 not due to the high price--I think that it's worth the price for many--but because the tradeoff between performance and resolution is not acceptable for our shooting. 

Before getting the R5, I took a long hard look at the A9II (I was shooting Sony and the A1 had not yet been announced). I knew that the A9II had better AF and performance (0 EVF lag/blackout, and virtually zero rolling shutter). But for someone who is limited more by resolution than by performance, the A9 cameras were a definite no. Nothing has changed. Perhaps, I would have been better off waiting for the A1, but there are too many things about Sony that I wasn't happy with, so the jump back to Canon was worthwhile. 

If I knew that the R1 was going to be high-resolution, I might wait, but I'm not convinced that the speculations are accurate. If the Z9 is disappointing, then waiting is what I'll do.


----------



## arbitrage (Sep 21, 2021)

Mr. Cable must be confused.
According to Canon Japan the EOS R3 is for "High Amateurs". Only the 1DXIII is for professionals.

Source: https://cweb-canon-jp.translate.goo...tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui,elem,sc


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

Billybob said:


> On the contrary, there are quite a few of us wildlife photogs who are taking a hard pass on the R3 not due to the high price--I think that it's worth the price for many--but because the tradeoff between performance and resolution is not acceptable for our shooting.


I’m not sure there’s really a trade-off between performance and resolution. The performance is high, the resolution is lower but that was a declarative choice by Canon since the R5 clearly shows at least 30 MP was possible at 30 fps.

Regardless, 24 MP is not enough for you. What did you do before there were 24 MP cameras?


----------



## entoman (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bet wildlife shooters that can afford the R3 will buy one. But I agree that most wildlife shooters will pass – because of the price tag not the MP count.


I can’t speak for “most” wildlife shooters, but:

I don’t think the body price would dissuade many of us from getting the R3, after all, hordes of us are already shooting on the 1Dxii and 1DXiii, which cost around the same price, and the R3 is clearly a far better camera (in all regards other than battery life).

But there are a huge number of people currently shooting wildlife on 5DMkiv or 7DMkii, who may be considering a top of the range Canon. Some of them will buy the R5, others will be toying with the idea of getting an R3 or a Sony a1.

What is really likely to dissuade them is not the cost of an R3 body, but the cost of *lenses*. A hi-res sensor would allow them to use shorter, lighter and far less expensive lenses, as it offers far more flexibility when cropping.

It’s the lenses where the savings occur - not only in cost, but also in bulk and weight.


----------



## melgross (Sep 21, 2021)

Steve S said:


> A thumbnail you can zoom into to pixel peep, or are you suggesting it reprocesses the RAW file when you zoom in, if you look at the size of your RAW files I think you will see they differ largely by the size of a jpg version.


It’s a jpeg. You can’t really pixel peep a jpeg. I’ve never seen embedded jpegs being of any really usable quality. You can use them to go through a large batch of photos to see what they are without having to open the far larger file. You can get some idea about color and exposure. But you can’t rely on them for much else. That’s their main use.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

melgross said:


> It’s a jpeg. You can’t really pixel peep a jpeg. I’ve never seen embedded jpegs being of any really usable quality. You can use them to go through a large batch of photos to see what they are without having to open the far larger file. You can get some idea about color and exposure. But you can’t rely on them for much else. That’s their main use.


I suspect the question was about pixel peeping on-camera (aka ‘chimping’). If you shoot RAW only, what is shown on the LCD/EVF image review? The jpg thumbnail in the RAW container. That jpg is also used to generate the histogram and 'blinkies' (which is why judging exposure/clipping based on an 8-bit version conversion of the 14-bit RAW file can be a challenge).


----------



## Franklyok (Sep 21, 2021)

Billybob said:


> "Once you've done 45, you can't go back!"


Waiting for R5C with eye AF and new improved flash hot shoe.

Price between R5 and R3…


----------



## kaihp (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect the question was about pixel peeping on-camera (aka ‘chimping’). If you shoot RAW only, what is shown on the LCD/EVF image review? The jpg thumbnail in the RAW container. That jpg is also used to generate the histogram and 'blinkies' (which is why judging exposure/clipping based on an 8-bit version conversion of the 14-bit RAW file can be a challenge).


I\ve come to teach myself that a little bit of clipping due to over-exposure (blinkies) in the jpeg thumbnaail is usually OK, but not a lot. But it's definitely a judgement call, depending on the subject and what you want to achieve. A solid "Your Milage May Vary"


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 21, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> Funnily enough, I was only thinking about this a couple of days ago.
> 
> Has Canon mentioned anything about R3 and SDexpress compatibility does anyone know?



It does not have SD Express. SD Express would set your existing SD cards back to UHS-1 speeds if/when it comes you’ll be wholesale buying new cards or you’ll be waiting a good while on the buffer clearing.


----------



## shire_guy (Sep 21, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> “Image copy command”!? Somehow I’ve never noticed that before. Is tha feature in all Canon pro and prosumer bodies? I have the R5.


It's on the R5 and I also used it on the 5DIV. I started using it to replace taking a laptop on trips to backup my photos to save on weight. It also makes it easy to backup in the field. I have a couple on large capacity SD cards I write dual backups to, then clear my main card if I need to. The copy function works very much the same as the file copy feature in Windows so you can elect to replace or ignore.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bet wildlife shooters that can afford the R3 will buy one. But I agree that most wildlife shooters will pass – because of the price tag not the MP count.



I'm not so sure about that. If you read Jeff Cable's take, he said he chose to take R5s with him on his wildlife trip to Africa, not the R3. 

When the resolution of the R3 came out, there were a lot of wildlife and bird photographers on this forum complaining. My response was simple, Canon views the R5 as their wildlife and bird photography body and the R3 as their sports body. Of course, either one can be used for the other purpose, but there will be compromises. 

The other day, just to experiment I shot a soccer game 1/2 with the 1DxIII and 1/2 with the R5. I got about the same number of keepers with each camera but with the R5 I was constantly running into buffer problems and missed some key shots. I've never had buffer problems shooting birds with the R5 (different use cases require different bodies). 

Bottom line, I expect the R5 to still be better for overall for wildlife and birds and the R3 to be better for sports. Which is what Cable concluded.


----------



## carlosalberto (Sep 21, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> That's it for me! Holding out for the R3ii


it's great if it meets your needs !!!


----------



## Billybob (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not sure there’s really a trade-off between performance and resolution. The performance is high, the resolution is lower but that was a declarative choice by Canon since the R5 clearly shows at least 30 MP was possible at 30 fps.
> 
> Regardless, 24 MP is not enough for you. What did you do before there were 24 MP cameras?


No, as Sony has shown with its 50MP a1, we can have both. Hopefully, Nikon will follow soon, and Canon in the next couple of years. 

As for your second question, it's hard to remember. I've had at least 36MP since 2012 in the Nikon D800 cameras. Before that 21MP (Canon 5DII) was my body, but I wasn't doing birding then. I didn't really get serious about birding until I started working with the 42MP Sony a7r III and 45.7MP D850. 

Did Photographers take incredible wildlife images with 20MP-and-less cameras? Absolutely, and I admire their work. Perhaps I could have become skilled enough to produce similar results without high-resolution cameras, but given the choice, I'd rather stick with the high-resolution cameras. And since they exist--and soon (hopefully), all three of the big camera producers will have high-resolution bodies with BSI stacked sensors--it's good to know that I don't have to choose between resolution and the best performance.


----------



## Billybob (Sep 21, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> Waiting for R5C with eye AF and new improved flash hot shoe.
> 
> Price between R5 and R3…


I really want the stacked sensor and faster EVF. However, I fear those features are reserved--at least for the foreseeable future--for the R3 and above cameras. 

Of course, I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 21, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I'm not so sure about that. If you read Jeff Cable's take, he said he chose to take R5s with him on his wildlife trip to Africa, not the R3.
> 
> When the resolution of the R3 came out, there were a lot of wildlife and bird photographers on this forum complaining. My response was simple, Canon views the R5 as their wildlife and bird photography body and the R3 as their sports body. Of course, either one can be used for the other purpose, but there will be compromises.
> 
> ...


I believe that Jeff Cable had to return the R3 to Canon at the conclusion of the Olympics. The R3 was not available for his future wildlife trip to Africa so he obviously took the R5.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Sep 21, 2021)

I am no Jeff Cable, and I wouldn’t even pretend to have to skill and ability that he has. However, I did manage to get my hands-on an R3 at the Photography Show in Birmingham on Monday. As a regular past 1D shooter I have to say what a pleasure to hold the R3 was.

The R3 is much lighter than the current 1D series which is noticeable, and it did feel grippier than the previous full-bodied cameras as for the rest I’ll leave that for the experts to chat about, just my minuscule first impression of the R3 body.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Sep 21, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I do not get why he shot RAW at all.
> There could not have been very much RAW image support at the time.


That doesn't mean there never will be, and he can process those raw images at a later date if he chooses. Always nice to have the raw copy for any number of reasons in the future.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Sep 21, 2021)

arbitrage said:


> Mr. Cable must be confused.
> According to Canon Japan the EOS R3 is for "High Amateurs". Only the 1DXIII is for professionals.
> 
> Source: https://cweb-canon-jp.translate.goo...tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui,elem,sc


Any camera can be used by professionals. If you're getting paid for your work, you're a professional.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 22, 2021)

unfocused said:


> The other day, just to experiment I shot a soccer game 1/2 with the 1DxIII and 1/2 with the R5. I got about the same number of keepers with each camera but with the R5 I was constantly running into buffer problems and missed some key shots. I've never had buffer problems shooting birds with the R5 (different use cases require different bodies).


Page 901 of the advanced user guide shows that the buffer depth for Raw vs cRaw is 180 vs 260 for the CFe card. If dual recording to USD-II card then the Raw vs cRaw depth is 87 vs 260 so a big difference. HEIF large is 280 shots for both CFe and USH-II so not a significant increase over cRaw. The depth is singificantly decreased if shooting Raw + large jpeg to both cards.

Given the general consensus that cRaw is very close to Raw quality then it seems to be a simple choice to use cRaw if you are hitting the buffer limits. If you are still hitting limits then the R5 is not the camera to use 

Jeff Cable talked about this on Petapixel
https://petapixel.com/2020/09/05/canon-r5-and-r6-comparing-the-file-formats-raw-craw-jpeg-and-heif/


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 22, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Page 901 of the advanced user guide shows that the buffer depth for Raw vs cRaw is 180 vs 260 for the CFe card. If dual recording to USD-II card then the Raw vs cRaw depth is 87 vs 260 so a big difference. HEIF large is 280 shots for both CFe and USH-II so not a significant increase over cRaw. The depth is singificantly decreased if shooting Raw + large jpeg to both cards.
> 
> Given the general consensus that cRaw is very close to Raw quality then it seems to be a simple choice to use cRaw if you are hitting the buffer limits. If you are still hitting limits then the R5 is not the camera to use
> 
> ...


And the R3's cRaw buffer (shooting to one card) is 420 at 30fps irrespective of which card you use... so 14 seconds worth of shooting.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 22, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I believe that Jeff Cable had to return the R3 to Canon at the conclusion of the Olympics. The R3 was not available for his future wildlife trip to Africa so he obviously took the R5.



This is what he said:



> On the other hand, on a photography trip to Africa after the Olympics, I shot everything on a Canon R5, and it was great to capture wildlife with 45MP and crop where necessary. I shot photos of African fish eagles and did a lot of cropping on them, and even if you crop 30 percent of the image, it’s still a 10MB file with the R5. I also didn’t really need the R3’s 30fps in Africa.



I don't know if he had access to the R3 for the trip or not. Or, if he asked Canon to let him take it to Africa. But this sounded to me like he had a preference for the R5 on a wildlife focused trip.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 22, 2021)

unfocused said:


> This is what he said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if he had access to the R3 for the trip or not. Or, if he asked Canon to let him take it to Africa. But this sounded to me like he had a preference for the R5 on a wildlife focused trip.


 Or he was speaking completely hypothetically, and was just saying he'd have preferred the R5 even if given the option, which he wasn't.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 22, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Or he was speaking completely hypothetically, and was just saying he'd have preferred the R5 even if given the option, which he wasn't.


That's a much better way to express it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I'm not so sure about that. If you read Jeff Cable's take, he said he chose to take R5s with him on his wildlife trip to Africa, not the R3.
> 
> When the resolution of the R3 came out, there were a lot of wildlife and bird photographers on this forum complaining. My response was simple, Canon views the R5 as their wildlife and bird photography body and the R3 as their sports body. Of course, either one can be used for the other purpose, but there will be compromises.
> 
> ...


That's a reasonable conclusion, I think.

As for Africa, a lot depends on where and what you're shooting. For example, I took this in Rwanda years ago with a 4 MP superzoom P&S, it's uncropped and at a FF eq of ~250mm.




But, many shots on the Serengeti were at the long end of the range (FF eq 380mm) and having more than 4 MP would have been nice.


----------



## DJPatte (Sep 22, 2021)

I’ve shot to one card since 1Ds and it has worked just fine (for me). What really really troubles me is his remarks on the eye focus as “too slow for sports” (my words). I want a MONSTER. Not a social event camera. This needs to be addressed.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 22, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> Any camera can be used by professionals. If you're getting paid for your work, you're a professional.


WTF does a high amateur mean. High on drugs?


----------



## PerKr (Sep 22, 2021)

it's telling that Jeff states that he brought his R5s with him with the intention to mainly use those but ended up not doing so in favor of the R3. And that he didn't do that much cropping compared to when shooting birds.

As for the eye-control... He stated he turned it off for some fast-paced sports because it wasn't as fast as his normal method. I guess the normal method would be fixed AF point or AF area as selecting an AF point/area in any other way is also not happening very quickly? At least that's my experience with other cameras. But he doesn't say a lot about eye-control really other than that, which is a shame, and it's only mentioned briefly along with eye-detect AF not being ideal when you can't see the eyes. Future reviews will tell for sure but for now I will trust the few video reviews I've seen which seem to indicate it working great for motorsport, running, soccer and so on.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 22, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> And the R3's cRaw buffer (shooting to one card) is 420 at 30fps irrespective of which card you use... so 14 seconds worth of shooting.


Where did you get the buffer depth from? - would love to dig into this.


----------



## Canfan (Sep 22, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> I’ve never been a fan of dual media types in a camera, but that’s just an annoyance more than a physical limitation. I seldom shoot any of my cameras RAW+JPEG to both cards, but if that’s something you commonly do, then I can understand why it would be an issue for you. Overall, I think it was a mistake to do that mainly because of the performance limitation it imposes as well as the market the camera is in. If you came from a 1DX, Mark II or Mark III….well now you have to buy SD cards! If you’re coming from a Mark III then you probably already have CFExpress. Either way, you have enough money to buy a $100 64GB card or $175 for a 128GB if you plan to shoot just photos. Or you can splurge on the higher capacities. Heck, I remember a free CFast card used to come with the 1DX Mark II when it came out! I never got my damn free reader!!! Haha
> 
> Canon and other brands should just make us rip off the bandaid here…only the new format - and here’s why: I have now run into several people shooting the D850 who never bought a CFExpress card and just shoot with their camera as a single card because the readers are “too expensive” or they don’t want to buy them because they have SD cards already. So there is something to be said about people moving from one generation of camera to the next not adopting or investing in new media. It’s likely that some R3s will meet the same fate,but I feel like that’s a totally different market.
> 
> Oh well, this doesn’t bother me personally but I understand it will others. I use the dual cars more for utility and file organization with photos on one and video on the other…but it really would make more sense for this camera to have 2 of the same. I’m sure Tony Northrop is pumped to insert some old, slow, corrupted SD card into that slot and then claim the camera is terrible when shooting to 2 cards. LOL


You make a good point here. Some people want SD and some people need Express. There a lots of different people with varying needs. Like express in great for video, and absolute speed when shooting RAW, SD works for RAW but better with JPEG only. So maybe he could of done RAW to express and Jpeg to sd card to improve speed. 

As you stated not everyone has a express card reader and for pros who may quickly want to hand over their images to their editor an SD Card full of JPEGs is golden. Most computers and laptops still have an SD card reader built in. That's why it won't go away soon.

But going forward maybe Canon can come up with a 2 slots that can accept both, sort of like a dual function, either it can accommodate 2 express for the speed demons or those same slots could accept 2 SD cards for those people who do event or slower pace events and don't need express. Don't know if that doable but i'm sure canon engineers are talented enough to overcome that challenge. Makes more sense that offering 3 versions of those pro bodies like a R3S with dual express, and one with dual SD maybe more of a challenge.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 22, 2021)

Great interview, and it raises my respect even higher for Jeff Cable. Straight talk, honest insights! Rare these days.

But, as Neuro pointed out, he didn't bring a ton of new info to the table. We've had a decade of various resolutions higher and lower than the R3 to decide for ourselves what our needs and preferences are. And no magic tech has appeared to make a second type of media as fast as the faster card in the other slot.

As for Eye Control AF, wouldn't it improve with firmware updates? If AI is involved, would Canon be gathering usage data that can be applied to the algorithms? I know that AF has been improving on the R5 since its release.

The R3 does seem great for closer action--and for that vanishing species, photojournalism. (Supplanted, largely, by anybody with any type of image-capturing device willing to share or sell what they've got. Smartphones are ubiquitous, newsrooms are broke, and printed news photos are...where?) I'm interested to see how the sensor works for low-light events and portrait work, if there is any new color science that improves Canon's already great skin-tone renderings. While the ergonomics of this and the 1D bodies don't work for me, eventually the new tech will make its way to smaller bodies, if history is our guide.


----------



## EricN (Sep 22, 2021)

maybe tha


DJPatte said:


> I’ve shot to one card since 1Ds and it has worked just fine (for me). What really really troubles me is his remarks on the eye focus as “too slow for sports” (my words). I want a MONSTER. Not a social event camera. This needs to be addressed.


maybe that's partly why it's not "R1"


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 22, 2021)

DJPatte said:


> I’ve shot to one card since 1Ds and it has worked just fine (for me). What really really troubles me is his remarks on the eye focus as “too slow for sports” (my words). I want a MONSTER. Not a social event camera. This needs to be addressed.



If the eye AF selection is too slow you go back to using the joystick or mouse nipple on the AF on button. It doesn't put you in any a worse position than any other camera if you don't use an optional AF selection feature.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 22, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Canon is an Executive Board member of the SD Association.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sony is there. Canon is there. Fuji is there. Panasonic is there. Microsoft is there. What are you trying to imply? It is not as though this association is some kind of money machine. I doubt this causes Canon to keep the SD slots on cameras. My goodness.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 22, 2021)

arbitrage said:


> Mr. Cable must be confused.
> According to Canon Japan the EOS R3 is for "High Amateurs". Only the 1DXIII is for professionals.
> 
> Source: https://cweb-canon-jp.translate.goo...tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui,elem,sc


Do you think that if I am quiet about it that I could get away with buying an R3? I'm a "low" amateur. What would happen if I get caught?


----------



## Martin K (Sep 22, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Do you think that if I am quiet about it that I could get away with buying an R3? I'm a "low" amateur. What would happen if I get caught?


It's professional on this one





Canon EOS R3 - Professional Mirrorless Cameras - Canon UK


The EOS R3 full-frame professional mirrorless camera is designed to meet the demands of professional sports photographers with high reliability and durability.




www.canon.co.uk


----------



## degos (Sep 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> As I have often stated, Canon has data on who buys what and when, so for example they know how many 5DIV cameras were bought by 5DIII owners vs. those with a 5DII, 7D, 80D, etc. I suspect the latter group is much larger than the former.



How do they have such data? Beyond CPS members who fill-in their profile, that is. Which is a tiny proportion of purchasers.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 22, 2021)

Martin K said:


> It's professional on this one
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, my sarcasm was more to do with people that freak out over whether or not their preferred brand labels what they use as "professional" or not. My thought are, "Who cares?" A professional isn't a professional because of the gear he/she uses. Anyone who gets butthurt because there isn't a label that suits them (Including freaking over model naming conventions) is more interested in gear and self-perceived status than they are about photography.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 22, 2021)

degos said:


> How do they have such data? Beyond CPS members who fill-in their profile, that is. Which is a tiny proportion of purchasers.


Everyone who fills out a warrantee card. Many don't, but many do. They might also buy meta-data from credit providers, retailers, etc. Even sites like Flickr can provide data about who's using what and who's switched or tried something new. The data is out there for those with deep enough pockets. Sites like flickr have data showing, for example, who was shooting with a 5D III? What are they shooting with now? How many people had the R? How many will switch to something else? Flickr and Facebook and such will know before Canon does.


----------



## djack41 (Sep 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bet wildlife shooters that can afford the R3 will buy one. But I agree that most wildlife shooters will pass – because of the price tag not the MP count.


Some but not all. Many of us wildlife photographers shoot with $13000.00 lenses. A camera that cost $2500 more than an R5 is not the issue.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 22, 2021)

djack41 said:


> Some but not all. Many of us wildlife photographers shoot with $13000.00 lenses. A camera that cost $2500 more than an R5 is not the issue.



Well, wildlife shooters wanting to run their new $13,000 lenses will want the R3. Otherwise the lenses aren't focusing as fast as they are capable off.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2021)

degos said:


> How do they have such data? Beyond CPS members who fill-in their profile, that is. Which is a tiny proportion of purchasers.


As @CanonFanBoy stated, everyone who fills out a warranty registration card. They're not required for coverage, but many people do still fill them out or register their products online. Even if it's just a small fraction, it's a good sample and more importantly unlike CPS it's likely a random sample across the customer base. They also ask for demographic info like income, main uses for the gear, etc. They do occasional surveys of owners – I've gotten a couple, and I'm not registered with CPS (though I have more than ample 'points'), and those ask for the gear you own as well as what you'd like to see more of from Canon (features, products, etc.).

That's what market research is all about, and that's why it's so ridiculous when people here claim to know what 'most people want' better than Canon does, when they really only know what they personally want.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2021)

djack41 said:


> Some but not all. Many of us wildlife photographers shoot with $13000.00 lenses. A camera that cost $2500 more than an R5 is not the issue.


Very, very few photographers own $13K lenses.


----------



## Steve S (Sep 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> A .CR3 file from the EOS R includes a 1620x1080 jpg file. That’s 1.8 MP and is smaller than the smallest in-camera jpg setting (Small 2, 2400x1600).


That still means to produce a RAW file you also need to produce a jpg and now resize it, I think twice as research does suggest there are two jpegs stored in a RAW file, so I can't see how the original supposition, in the article, that writing two RAW files is fast than RAW and jpeg.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Very, very few photographers own $13K lenses.



Few photographers, many wildlife photographers. It's all lovely that the wedding guys can use the a 'cheep' trinity of f/2.8 zooms, but those don't work for wildlife shooters.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 22, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Few photographers, many wildlife photographers. It's all lovely that the wedding guys can use the a 'cheep' trinity of f/2.8 zooms, but those don't work for wildlife shooters.


Aw heck! I knew I was doing it wrong with a couple of old 135mm f/2.8s and a 400mm f/6.3 manual focus lens. That 200mm f/4 Takumar I have can't shoot wildlife either. The vast majority of wildlife shooters do not have super-tele lenses. Unless, of course, we wish to be snobby and say they are not wildlife shooters if they don't get paid, go on safari, or take whale watching trips.  We could just ignore those paupers.... but they are the biggest slice of the market. Cheap lenses CAN and DO regularly and frequently photograph wildlife. What about the wildlife shooters who shoot underwater or macro? What should I use my 60mm f/2.8 macro for? Coins? Bicycle chains? Glad I have not bought one of Canon's new cheap f/8 RF supers. Gotta be faster than f/2.8, right? Gotta be longggggg too.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 22, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Aw heck! I knew I was doing it wrong with a couple of old 135mm f/2.8s and a 400mm f/6.3 manual focus lens. That 200mm f/4 Takumar I have can't shoot wildlife either. The vast majority of wildlife shooters do not have super-tele lenses. Unless, of course, we wish to be snobby and say they are not wildlife shooters if they don't get paid, go on safari, or take whale watching trips.  We could just ignore those paupers.... but they are the biggest slice of the market. Cheap lenses CAN and DO regularly and frequently photograph wildlife. What about the wildlife shooters who shoot underwater or macro? What should I use my 60mm f/2.8 macro for? Coins? Bicycle chains? Glad I have not bought one of Canon's new cheap f/8 RF supers. Gotta be faster than f/2.8, right? Gotta be longggggg too.



Many is not all. Are you trying to pick a fight? You don't seem to have a problem with me saying wedding photographers will be using the f/2.8 trinity (which is also a rather expensive set.)


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 22, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Many is not all. Are you trying to pick a fight? You don't seem to have a problem with me saying wedding photographers will be using the f/2.8 trinity (which is also a rather expensive set.)


Not trying to pick at all. You said f/2.8 trinity lenses don't work for wildlife shooters, full stop. Not true. Entirely dependent on genre. Entirely dependent on the user's pocket depth too. The f/2.8 trinity may not work for some, but can absolutely be used for wildlife. Neuro is correct. Very few wildlife shooters own $13k lenses. Very few. Frogs and centipedes are wildlife too. I'd be saying the same if you said certain lenses don't work for weddings. Poppycock.


----------



## DBounce (Sep 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not sure there’s really a trade-off between performance and resolution. The performance is high, the resolution is lower but that was a declarative choice by Canon since the R5 clearly shows at least 30 MP was possible at 30 fps.
> 
> Regardless, 24 MP is not enough for you. What did you do before there were 24 MP cameras?


I heard it said that the 24MP image from the R3 seems to resolve similar detail to the 30MP images of the R. From what I’ve seen in the Vanessa Joy video where she is editing the raw files, I believe this may be true. Look @ 5:39, she zooms in 300% and the image looks quite good.


----------



## EricN (Sep 22, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Not trying to pick at all. You said f/2.8 trinity lenses don't work for wildlife shooters, full stop. Not true. Entirely dependent on genre. Entirely dependent on the user's pocket depth too. The f/2.8 trinity may not work for some, but can absolutely be used for wildlife. Neuro is correct. Very few wildlife shooters own $13k lenses. Very few. Frogs and centipedes are wildlife too. I'd be saying the same if you said certain lenses don't work for weddings. Poppycock.


I'd like to see someone with a 600mm at a wedding...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 22, 2021)

EricN said:


> I'd like to see someone with a 600mm at a wedding...



I did a wedding with my 300 f/2.8 and a 400 f/2.8 ... I mean they asked a wildlife shooter, what did they expect. Not 600, but it was equally daft. Though the photos all looked rather natural as people didn't know when the shots where getting taken.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2021)

Steve S said:


> That still means to produce a RAW file you also need to produce a jpg and now resize it, I think twice as research does suggest there are two jpegs stored in a RAW file, so I can't see how the original supposition, in the article, that writing two RAW files is fast than RAW and jpeg.


Yes, when you parse a .CR3 file there are two JPGs, one is a thumbnail image (tagged THMB) that's 160 pixels wide, another is a preview image (tagged PRVW) that is 1620 pixels wide (sizes for an EOS R .CR3 file). Not really relevant to Cable's post, though.

The statement by him you're referring to is: "_The SD Card slot is slow. I was shooting RAW plus JPEG to both the CFexpress card and the SD card since I couldn’t easily open the R3’s RAW files yet and needed the JPEGs. Some people don’t know this but shooting RAW plus JPEG slows the camera down more than shooting two RAWs because the camera has to process the image twice._"

I'm not sure he's correct that the camera has to process the image twice for RAW+JPG (seems inefficient and therefore unlikely), but he is correct that shooting RAW+JPG is slower than RAW alone, if only because the camera has to store both the RAW and the JPG files in buffer and then write both the RAW and the JPG files to the card, instead of just the RAW file.

The way he describes it, he had it set up to write RAW+JPG to Card 1 _and_ RAW+JPG to Card 2. In other words, he selected RAW and JPG (presumably large/fine) under image Quality and has Record Options set to Rec. to Multiple so both formats are written to both cards.


So he's talking about writing RAW+JPG to two cards simultaneously vs writing just RAW to two cards simultaneously (which is the same as comparing write speeds for RAW vs. RAW+JPG) and of course writing just RAW will be faster. In other words, he really means that writing two RAW files is faster than writing two RAW files plus two JPG files.

What I think you're talking about is writing RAW to the CFe card and JPG to the SD card, with the above Rec Options set to Rec. Separately and RAW set for one card, JPG for the other. That would be faster than writing RAW+JPG to the same card, and I think faster than writing RAW to both cards because of the slower speed of the SD slot.

Although RAW to CFe and JPG to SD is faster, there's the (slim) chance that a card failure would mean the loss of one file format, meaning no RAW file for him to play with later if the CFe failed, or there's no way to convert R3 RAWs for now, no way to use the image immediately if the SD card failed. So Cable chose RAW+JPG to both cards as the safer choice, but slower meaning he missed some shots.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Few photographers, many wildlife photographers. It's all lovely that the wedding guys can use the a 'cheep' trinity of f/2.8 zooms, but those don't work for wildlife shooters.


'Many' is relative. The reality is that there aren't many _Wildlife Photographers_, so even if 'many' of that niche group use $13K lenses, it's very, very few in absolute terms. However, there are probably a reasonably large number of _photographers_ who shoot _wildlife_, and very very few of them have $13K lenses.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 'Many' is relative. The reality is that there aren't many _Wildlife Photographers_, so even if 'many' of that niche group use $13K lenses, it's very, very few in absolute terms. However, there are probably a reasonably large number of _photographers_ who shoot _wildlife_, and very very few of them have $13K lenses.



In the context of all photographers (with a DSLR or mirrorless body), few will own a super-tele lens. If we narrow that down to wedding and events photographers, I can't imagine any of them will have a $13,000 super-tele. But if we look at sports shooters and wildlife photographers, I expect and often see many of them with a $13,000 super-tele. This isn't to say you don't have the weekend adventurer using a 200-500 f/5.6 on a Nikon D500 and getting great results for under $3000. It is saying that many wildlife photographers will have one or more of these big lenses as it is a tool of their trade as much as the f/2.8 trinity is all but expected to be in every wedding and events shooter (even if we have some outliners that use a 35+85 prime combo or any number of other variations). 

And of course 'many' is relative, it is not absolute. And I don't have the data to say that there are 1 million wildlife photographers and 100,000 of those have one or more super-tele lenses and that constitutes as many. What I have is knowing and meeting up on occasion with other wildlife photographers and they'll have a 200-400 and or 600mm f/4.0 with them and when I go to a national park or someplace more exotic or if I look at the equipment the BBC are sending a documentary crew out with, they are going out with a big expensive lens or two. The same as if you look at the Olympics and see the wall of great whites, you can conclude that many sports shooters are using these lenses because there isn't anything else and you just can't get close enough to use your 70-200 f/2.8.


----------



## derrald (Sep 22, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> “Image copy command”!? Somehow I’ve never noticed that before. Is tha feature in all Canon pro and prosumer bodies? I have the R5.


This is perhaps one of the top 3 things I've learned when reading these forums. I usually skip checking out the blue menu altogether.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 22, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Many is not all. Are you trying to pick a fight? You don't seem to have a problem with me saying wedding photographers will be using the f/2.8 trinity (which is also a rather expensive set.)


Wow. I just realized how batcrap crazy my interpretation of what you said is. Please accept my sincerest apologies.


----------



## Atlasman (Sep 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not sure there’s really a trade-off between performance and resolution. The performance is high, the resolution is lower but that was a declarative choice by Canon since the R5 clearly shows at least 30 MP was possible at 30 fps.
> 
> Regardless, 24 MP is not enough for you. What did you do before there were 24 MP cameras?


30MP and 30fps was possible, but not without compromising the video specs. I’m sure Canon didn’t want to leave the videographers out.


----------



## djack41 (Sep 23, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Well, wildlife shooters wanting to run their new $13,000 lenses will want the R3. Otherwise the lenses aren't focusing as fast as they are capable off.


Bet most will want the resolution of the R5.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 23, 2021)

DJPatte said:


> I’ve shot to one card since 1Ds and it has worked just fine (for me). What really really troubles me is his remarks on the eye focus as “too slow for sports” (my words). I want a MONSTER. Not a social event camera. This needs to be addressed.


The speed of its responsiveness is adjustable. I've seen people using it where it works very well, but it's going to introduce a new learning curve of when/where/how to use it.


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 23, 2021)

EricN said:


> I'd like to see someone with a 600mm at a wedding...


Journos at private celebrity weddings? Probably need the 800mm as well......


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 23, 2021)

djack41 said:


> Bet most will want the resolution of the R5.


Not everyone is photographing birds. Some want to capture the moment a lion downs a zebra at the end of a high speed chase. Or even just fox cubs playing outside their burrow for the first time. Just looking at a chap on Youtube, he is using the Nikon D6 and D850 for different use cases, but the D6 is the main body.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 23, 2021)

Atlasman said:


> 30MP and 30fps was possible, but not without compromising the video specs. I’m sure Canon didn’t want to leave the videographers out.


Not to mention the R3 is 30 fps at 14 bit A/D conversion while the R5 20 fps at 12 bit A/D conversion. While I haven't seen an issue with the images from electronic shutter on the R5, the 24 MP of the R3 may have also allowed 14 bit conversion.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 23, 2021)

The two things I found most interesting from his blog post...

"My original plan was to shoot with the Canon R5 cameras as my primary cameras, and use the Canon R3 as my "test camera" for those times when I was not contractually obligated to shoot for Team USA. But that changed almost immediately! I started using the Canon R3 at the Opening Ceremony and never stopped. The Canon R5 cameras basically sat in my camera bags for most of the Olympics."

"The new Canon R3 brings all the power of the Canon 1D series to the mirrorless world, and that is a welcome addition to the Canon line-up. Canon may not like me saying this, but for anyone looking to purchase a Canon 1DX MKIII, I would recommend going with the Canon R3. I think that the R series is the future for Canon, with all the new lenses coming out for these new bodies, and the camera just performs better in so many respects."


----------



## djack41 (Sep 23, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Not everyone is photographing birds. Some want to capture the moment a lion downs a zebra at the end of a high speed chase. Or even just fox cubs playing outside their burrow for the first time. Just looking at a chap on Youtube, he is using the Nikon D6 and D850 for different use cases, but the D6 is the main body.


Bet most wildlife photographers will opt for the resolution of the R5. Read Jeff Cables article. After his review, he went to Africa and chose the R5 over the R3 for his wildlife shots. JMHO


----------



## djack41 (Sep 23, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Well, wildlife shooters wanting to run their new $13,000 lenses will want the R3. Otherwise the lenses aren't focusing as fast as they are capable off.


Good comment. But I must say the hit rate of the R5 with a 600mm F4 lll is impressive. The R5 just provides the option to crop while retaining more detail. Wish the R3 had a 45MP sensor.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 23, 2021)

djack41 said:


> Bet most wildlife photographers will opt for the resolution of the R5. Read Jeff Cables article. After his review, he went to Africa and chose the R5 over the R3 for his wildlife shots. JMHO


Not correct. Canon took the R3 back off him as soon as he finished at the Olympics. He did not have the option to take the R3 with him to Africa.

I've been a wildlife photographer for almost 40 years, the last time I was this excited about a new pre-order was the 1Diii with 10 MP. Great camera once Canon sorted the focussing issues out.


----------



## melgross (Sep 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect the question was about pixel peeping on-camera (aka ‘chimping’). If you shoot RAW only, what is shown on the LCD/EVF image review? The jpg thumbnail in the RAW container. That jpg is also used to generate the histogram and 'blinkies' (which is why judging exposure/clipping based on an 8-bit version conversion of the 14-bit RAW file can be a challenge).


Yes, that’s true. And as you say, it’s a problem. We’ve been requesting a RAW instead, but apparently that’s been too difficult to do. Maybe someday.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 23, 2021)

djack41 said:


> Bet most wildlife photographers will opt for the resolution of the R5. Read Jeff Cables article. After his review, he went to Africa and chose the R5 over the R3 for his wildlife shots. JMHO


The way I read the article, I do not think he had the R3 in Africa. It sounds like he picked up a copy in Japan and likely had to return it. Then he left for Africa with the two R5's that he actually owns. 

I do think higher MPs is nice for wildlife, but 24 MPs is more than the 1DX (I, II, or III) that have been used to take countless amazing wildlife images. So, higher MPs of the R5 will be better in some instances, better AF, eye-controlled AF, and higher FPS of the R3 will be better in other instances. Overall, I expect photographers that pick either camera to get excellent images. Just one may favor freezing action and the other more detailed images. 

With that said, I am seeing some clean jpgs from the R3 at high ISO. I am not concluding anything yet, but there is a chance high ISO performance will also favor the R3.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 23, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> Canon and other brands should just make us rip off the bandaid here…only the new format


SD has been around a long time.
The other formats keep changing.
CFExpress Type B is the present but history tells me that it is not the future.
History tells us that SD will stick around a while.
I understand why people are annoyed.
I also understand why Canon went they way that they did.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 23, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> That's it for me! Holding out for the R3ii


I could see the R3 II and R5 II still having mixed card slots.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 23, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> Funnily enough, I was only thinking about this a couple of days ago.
> 
> Has Canon mentioned anything about R3 and SDexpress compatibility does anyone know?


UHS-II I believe


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 23, 2021)

EricN said:


> I'd like to see someone with a 600mm at a wedding...


You wouldn't.
They would be too far away.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 23, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> The speed of its responsiveness is adjustable. I've seen people using it where it works very well, but it's going to introduce a new learning curve of when/where/how to use it.


I doubt the Olympics is the best place to learn on the job..


----------



## djack41 (Sep 23, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> Not correct. Canon took the R3 back off him as soon as he finished at the Olympics. He did not have the option to take the R3 with him to Africa.
> 
> I've been a wildlife photographer for almost 40 years, the last time I was this excited about a new pre-order was the 1Diii with 10 MP. Great camera once Canon sorted the focussing issues out.


oops Emyr. My bad. Thanks for the correction. Jeff only expressed his appreciation of using a camera/sensor with more resolution, while in Africa, post Olympics. Hope you get a R3 soon!


----------



## djack41 (Sep 26, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Well, wildlife shooters wanting to run their new $13,000 lenses will want the R3. Otherwise the lenses aren't focusing as fast as they are capable off.


R5 tracking is very good and it allows a healthy crop. The jury is still out whether the R3 provides a significantly higher hit rate in exchange for the loss of resolution.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 26, 2021)

djack41 said:


> R5 tracking is very good and it allows a healthy crop. The jury is still out whether the R3 provides a significantly higher hit rate in exchange for the loss of resolution.


I would suspect better tracking with R3 because the R3 does 60 AF calculations / sec while the R5 does 20 AF calculations / sec.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 26, 2021)

djack41 said:


> R5 tracking is very good and it allows a healthy crop. The jury is still out whether the R3 provides a significantly higher hit rate in exchange for the loss of resolution.



Tracking isn’t the only part of AF. The R3 makes the 400 and 600 focus faster. The stacked sensor lets you keep track of the subjects. The resolution is still enough for a billboard. I don’t crop my wildlife photos, not everyone photographs birds.


----------



## djack41 (Sep 26, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Tracking isn’t the only part of AF. The R3 makes the 400 and 600 focus faster. The stacked sensor lets you keep track of the subjects. The resolution is still enough for a billboard. I don’t crop my wildlife photos, not everyone photographs birds.


Stand close to a billboard. lol


----------



## djack41 (Sep 26, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I would suspect better tracking with R3 because the R3 does 60 AF calculations / sec while the R5 does 20 AF calculations / sec.
> View attachment 200413


Might be a big difference. Somewhat amazing given the R3 and the R5 share basically the same X processor.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 26, 2021)

djack41 said:


> Stand close to a billboard. lol



I have 24 MP on my Nikon Z6 and have prints as big as my printers can manage that are sharp on close inspection. I have 6MP images printed to A2 that still look fantastic and full of detail right down to the whisker. I am completely sure that I would rather have the R3 than the R5 as the R3 will let me get shots that the R5 can’t get. If Nikon really bugger up the Z9 then it’ll be very easy to put in a order for a R3, 70-200, 100-500, and 600 RF and switch back to Canon. If the R5 was on a stacked sensor with a built in grip then I would consider it, until then it is not a big enough jump from the Z6 (and yes I have tried a R5).


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 26, 2021)

djack41 said:


> Might be a big difference. Somewhat amazing given the R3 and the R5 share basically the same X processor.



As Canon said, they are the Digic X but not the same. A 2.2 GHz Ryzen is not the same as a 3.0 GHz Ryzen even if they share generation, core count, and cache size.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 26, 2021)

djack41 said:


> Might be a big difference. Somewhat amazing given the R3 and the R5 share basically the same X processor.


When Canon released the Digic X processor that stated that it was a family of processors and that the Digic X processor in one camera might be different than a Digic X in another. Think of it as an Intel i5 processors. All are called i5s, but the number of cores and clock speed can vary depending on the specifics of the chip.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 26, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> I have 24 MP on my Nikon Z6 and have prints as big as my printers can manage that are sharp on close inspection. I have 6MP images printed to A2 that still look fantastic and full of detail right down to the whisker. I am completely sure that I would rather have the R3 than the R5 as the R3 will let me get shots that the R5 can’t get. If Nikon really bugger up the Z9 then it’ll be very easy to put in a order for a R3, 70-200, 100-500, and 600 RF and switch back to Canon. If the R5 was on a stacked sensor with a built in grip then I would consider it, until then it is not a big enough jump from the Z6 (and yes I have tried a R5).


Thank you for the perspective.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2021)

djack41 said:


> Stand close to a billboard. lol


I’ll just park on the highway and float up on my hoverboard. That’s how you do it, right?


----------



## djack41 (Sep 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’ll just park on the highway and float up on my hoverboard. That’s how you do it, right?


Just stand in the middle of the highway and look closely at the billboard for a few minutes. lol


----------



## stevelee (Sep 27, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well, my sarcasm was more to do with people that freak out over whether or not their preferred brand labels what they use as "professional" or not. My thought are, "Who cares?" A professional isn't a professional because of the gear he/she uses. Anyone who gets butthurt because there isn't a label that suits them (Including freaking over model naming conventions) is more interested in gear and self-perceived status than they are about photography.


“If you get an outfit, you can be a cowboy, too.”


----------



## SteveC (Sep 27, 2021)

stevelee said:


> “If you get an outfit, you can be a cowboy, too.”


And of course in rural Western America, that's derided as "all hat, no cattle."


----------



## stevelee (Sep 27, 2021)

I last made money in photography shooting with my T3i. So it was a professional camera. I have never made money shooting with a FF digital camera.


----------



## NKD (Sep 29, 2021)

Good read over on his website! Nothing beats a in built grip I am still guilty of hanging onto my 1d4 for straight JPG burst shooting, mainly for GIFs / Time-lapses. Just keep it in the car at all times.
Our Melbourne lockdown is slowly easing to permit the photography industry. Hope to test out these ergonomics at the Canon Experience store soon.


----------

