# Review: Canon EOS R3 final review by DPReviewTV



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 22, 2021)

> Chris and Jordan from DPReviewTV have completed their final review of the Canon EOS R3. I suspect that we’re going to see more reviews in the next couple of weeks from sports and wildlife shooters that will give us a real feel for what this camera is capable of.



Continue reading...


----------



## HenryL (Nov 22, 2021)

Saw that the other day when they posted. I'm a little underwhelmed, they titled it a Final Review, but it's not a review at all but a quick update to their earlier preview. 'll save y'all some time:

1. "I'd buy it over a 1DX III, but it's meh because 24mp". 
2. "It's the only camera that will shoot full raw at 30fps, but it's meh because 24mp"
3. "It's got a great buffer, I like the AF performance, but it's meh because 24mp"
4. "It's expensive for what it is, because 24mp"

I usually find them reasonably on point in most instances. For me, this time around they come across as though if it ain't 50mp, it ain't sh*t.


----------



## SilverBox (Nov 22, 2021)

Jordan seemed to like it much better than Chris, which speaks to its appeal to hybrid shooters. I was a little surprised they gave the edge in image quality to the R6 because based on the tests I have seen for far, to my eye the R3 has the slight edge.


----------



## HenryL (Nov 22, 2021)

I, too, found it odd the way Chris had the R6 edging out the R3. Each time, I looked at the comparison and found the R3 to equal or edge out the R6 in the noise comparisons.

FWIW...Jared just released a new video comparing A1 & R3 AF. Watching it now...don't know what he might have to say at the end, just watching the EVF recordings and tbh they are both impressive.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2021)

HenryL said:


> Saw that the other day when they posted. I'm a little underwhelmed, they titled it a Final Review, but it's not a review at all but a quick update to their earlier preview. 'll save y'all some time:
> 
> 1. "I'd buy it over a 1DX III, but it's meh because 24mp".
> 2. "It's the only camera that will shoot full raw at 30fps, but it's meh because 24mp"
> ...


It's often something with DPR and Canon. A few years back, their reviews came across as though if it didn't have >14 stops of DR (as DxO calculates their downsampled-to-8-MP sensor scores) and you couldn't lift the shadows 5 stops, it was crap.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 22, 2021)

I really enjoy Chris and Jordan and am very pleased that they have gained more popularity by their employment with DPReview. However, we’re still watching journalists and individuals express their opinions and those may not even remotely represent you or your needs. If there’s one thing Canon knows extremely well, it’s the professional camera market - it’s how and why they are the undesputed king in sideline/Olympic representations for roughly 30 years.

With that said, I watched the video and didn’t feel it was a very well put together conclusion for such an important, professional camera. When you look at all the impressive coverage the A1 received, the R3 appears to be something they had to report on and get out of the way. It’s times like this back in the TCS TV days where Jordan and Chris would ask professionals to assist them in conducting a more detailed review of a product. Give this camera to a professional rodeo photographer and have them shoot some local Alberta weekend rodeos. Maybe go to a Flames game and shoot hockey? I don’t know…don’t go to a zoo and take photos of a statuesque Penguin and your kid - what an absolute joke.

Honestly, they mailed it in here. This was very lazy.

P.S. Video overheating…hmmmmm….ProAV TV did some minimal testing with the R3 for overheating and didn’t get any issues at all. One of the primary factors that influenced me picking this up was because I was consider a cinema camera as an A cam for my video work - but I would still get better use out of a hybrid. I am a little worried now how it will perform in my use cases, the R5 has only been an issue twice in over a year.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 22, 2021)

I found it neither objectionable nor particularly informative. Mainly click bait while everyone waits for delivery of the R3. So much has already been covered that there doesn't seem to be a lot to say in a brief video that is new. On the other hand, I don't get the hate that DPR tends to generate around here. They are reviewers, they are entitled to their opinion and reviews that never point out weaknesses are useless in my opinion.


----------



## Darrell Cadieux (Nov 23, 2021)

HenryL said:


> I, too, found it odd the way Chris had the R6 edging out the R3. Each time, I looked at the comparison and found the R3 to equal or edge out the R6 in the noise comparisons.
> 
> FWIW...Jared just released a new video comparing A1 & R3 AF. Watching it now...don't know what he might have to say at the end, just watching the EVF recordings and tbh they are both impressive.


Jared thinks it beats out the A1...certainly in focus abilities. Nice thing too is that in 2 weeks those same focus abilities will be downloadable to my R5.


----------



## DBounce (Nov 23, 2021)

In all honesty I prefer the video from the R3 more than that of the Sony A1, Canon R5 or Nikon Z9. The colors look good. Resolution looks detailed, without looking over-sharpened. The stills also look great… they edge out the Sony and Nikon… it’s hard to say why… but they seem more aesthetically pleasing to my eyes.

I preordered this camera the moment it went live. Saw the Z9 and started to second guess myself. The Z9 has some really good reviews. And lots of footage shot by pros with real budgets… Then I saw some casual footage from the Z9. Shot outside of controlled environments; It’s then I knew I was on track with the Canon. I’m convinced that for most shooters the R3 will produce better imagery more of the time. The other will require more work to get them there.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2021)

unfocused said:


> On the other hand, I don't get the hate that DPR tends to generate around here. They are reviewers, they are entitled to their opinion and reviews that never point out weaknesses are useless in my opinion.


We’ve had this discussion before. The issue is their bias. Here’s an older example, but I’ve seen no evidence of change.

[quote author=rishi on DPR]
The metering sensor on the 1D X II has experienced a significant increase in resolution. With 360,000 RGB+IR pixels, it's the highest resolution metering sensor we've ever seen. *This should lead to accurate metering...*
[/quote]

[quote author=rishi on DPR]
_[The D5's] all-new AF system is coupled with a new 180K pixel RGB metering system and Advanced Scene Recognition System, helping to *achieve optimally balanced exposures and accurate white balance in even the most challenging light.*_
[/quote]

There are lots of other examples, such as docking Canon’s Servo AF tracking when they had the camera set to Spot AF (the manual recommends against that), complaining that when set to full auto AF the Canon camera just selects the closest subject (which is exactly what the camera is supposed to do), or bashing the ‘poor DR’ of the 1D X II, then claiming the similar DR of the D5 was not a problem since ‘DR isn’t as high a priority for the intended audience’ (because, you know, those cameras were aimed at completely different markets).

Overall, their attitude remains, “Nikon/Sony make stellar cameras capable of producing outstanding images. Canon makes cameras that take good pictures.”


----------



## HotPixels (Nov 23, 2021)

I found the section where Chris comments on the AF system to be a bit odd too. He didn't seem to understand the AF system or the settings very well.

He seems to criticize it for not having one mode to do it all, and having to actually set up the AF system. Which is normal for all cameras of this type. 

But his lack of understanding led to him not realizing that actually, in fact, one can set it to use Case 1 and the camera will get great results in one mode for most types of situations. Also he doesn't realize that the settings are not that complicated, if one knows them. In fact, those AF cases are kind of like presets for the AF settings of sensitivity and accel/decel. They actually make life easier, but he seemed to think they make it harder and more complicated.

So the lack of understanding about the AF system led to him both underestimating how easy it can be, how easy it can be to set up, and probably also not getting as good a result as possible. 

It's like someone else mentioned: it's as if they mailed in this review. That maybe because they discount the camera due to having "only" 24 MP, and so it may reflect that bias.


----------



## USMarineCorpsVet (Nov 23, 2021)

The fact that they are comparing files and giving an edge to a camera $3500 cheaper says a ton. The R3 appears to be overpriced and underwhelming, especially if the af performance is being pushed to the R5 and R6 through firmware updates.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2021)

HotPixels said:


> He didn't seem to understand the AF system or the settings very well.
> 
> He seems to criticize it for not having one mode to do it all, and having to actually set up the AF system. Which is normal for all cameras of this type.
> 
> So the lack of understanding about the AF system led to him … not getting as good a result as possible.


A repeat of some of my examples from 5 years ago. It’s one reason I appreciate Bryan’s (TDP) review. He may view a camera through rose-colored glasses, but he shoots Canon and knows how to configure and operate their cameras.

Many of the DPR reviewers clearly do not shoot Canon (the brief handling of a new camera being reviewed notwithstanding), do not understand how to effectively configure it, and in many cases haven’t even bothered to RTFM.

Mix overt bias with marginal competence and you have a recipe for unreliability.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 23, 2021)

We all have biases, but the behaviour indicates whether the bias is positive or negative towards a particular system. Jordan wants histograms/waveforms during record and he will keep complaining until he gets it etc. The issue is whether the negative (and positive) comments are balanced in general and against the market. One small irritation for one person shouldn't have a prominence in an overall review. That becomes petulance.

The average level becomes a hygiene factor for our decision process.
People are disproportionately interested in differences vs similarities between things. 
Ultimately, each review becomes a data point to consider or reject for an individual user.

All cameras have their quirks. Hard to imagine that R3 owners are going to be disappointed in its performance.


----------



## mariosk1gr (Nov 23, 2021)

Chris always from his past reviews about Canon cameras find something to complain. Ppl should not take him seriously about his objectivity!


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Nov 23, 2021)

The ‘review’ is not very thorough or scientific… there are many ways to get some more objective data from a camera by taking actual measurements. Statements like ‘oh it kinda looks a bit noisier to our eyes’ aren’t very meaningful.


This is much more a subjective ‘impression’ of the camera.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> A repeat of some of my examples from 5 years ago. It’s one reason I appreciate Bryan’s (TDP) review. He may view a camera through rose-colored glasses, but he shoots Canon and knows how to configure and operate their cameras.
> 
> Many of the DPR reviewers clearly do not shoot Canon (the brief handling of a new camera being reviewed notwithstanding), do not understand how to effectively configure it, and in many cases haven’t even bothered to RTFM.
> 
> Mix overt bias with marginal competence and you have a recipe for unreliability.


And then there are bloody amatuers like me. I have shot Canon DSLR since 2004 and despite trying to RTFM I haven't found a discernable difference between the AF "presets" (Case 1-6) on the 5D3 and 1DX cameras. I've kinda given up on trying to mess around with them.

The interview with Jeff Cable where he mentioned tha he just left the R3 in a specific AF mode/preset gives me hopes.


----------



## HenryL (Nov 23, 2021)

USMarineCorpsVet said:


> The fact that they are comparing files and giving an edge to a camera $3500 cheaper says a ton. The R3 appears to be overpriced and underwhelming, especially if the af performance is being pushed to the R5 and R6 through firmware updates


The fact that they compare a camera to one $3500 less expensive means nothing in and of itself. One can compare anything to anything. The fact that they give the edge to the less expensive camera, while the evidence they supply does not support their claim, does say a ton.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 23, 2021)

Maybe I should rewatch the video, but I watched it before seeing this post. My reaction at the time, "meh, they actually are not trashing the R3 as much as other Canons, even saying some positive things.... they must really like it." 

It's all relative.


----------



## sulla (Nov 23, 2021)

A very, very nice review, indeed!


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 23, 2021)

HenryL said:


> I, too, found it odd the way Chris had the R6 edging out the R3. Each time, I looked at the comparison and found the R3 to equal or edge out the R6 in the noise comparisons.
> 
> FWIW...Jared just released a new video comparing A1 & R3 AF. Watching it now...don't know what he might have to say at the end, just watching the EVF recordings and tbh they are both impressive.


I watched this 3 times to makes sure I wasn't mixing up things, but the R3 sure looks to have lower noise than the R6 and the Panasonic S5 - Chris says the exact opposite. Biased? or just incompetent?

The problem with so much on the internet is that the presenters and "influencers" are amateurs - and/or sometimes quite incompetent. 

I've said it often, but will repeat myself. Getting your information from the internet is not a good idea unless you know those very few reveiwers that are professional, accurate and honest. If you want to know how well something works, you really have to try it out for yourself. If we all stop clicking on the influencer's videos, we will all be better off.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> We’ve had this discussion before. The issue is their bias. Here’s an older example, but I’ve seen no evidence of change.
> 
> [quote author=rishi on DPR]
> The metering sensor on the 1D X II has experienced a significant increase in resolution. With 360,000 RGB+IR pixels, it's the highest resolution metering sensor we've ever seen. *This should lead to accurate metering...*



[quote author=rishi on DPR]
_[The D5's] all-new AF system is coupled with a new 180K pixel RGB metering system and Advanced Scene Recognition System, helping to *achieve optimally balanced exposures and accurate white balance in even the most challenging light.*_
[/quote]

There are lots of other examples, such as docking Canon’s Servo AF tracking when they had the camera set to Spot AF (the manual recommends against that), complaining that when set to full auto AF the Canon camera just selects the closest subject (which is exactly what the camera is supposed to do), or bashing the ‘poor DR’ of the 1D X II, then claiming the similar DR of the D5 was not a problem since ‘DR isn’t as high a priority for the intended audience’ (because, you know, those cameras were aimed at completely different markets).

Overall, their attitude remains, “Nikon/Sony make stellar cameras capable of producing outstanding images. Canon makes cameras that take good pictures.”
[/QUOTE]

I felt like they were really stretching to find something bad to say about this camera. And what they came up with was, as you and other point out, based on their lack of understanding of the system - or a cop-out tot he 24mp argument. 

Given that's all they could come up with, it would seem to imply this is going to be a very capable camera.


----------



## SilverBox (Nov 23, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> I was consider a cinema camera as an A cam for my video work - but I would still get better use out of a hybrid. I am a little worried now how it will perform in my use cases, the R5 has only been an issue twice in over a year.



Yeah to your point, when looking at the price of this camera, it is the same price as a C70 but with more sophisticated stills capabilities than the R6/R5. Through that lens it is a great value, because as a hybrid shooter you have an exceptional body for events and sports stills, with the ability to do video capture of almost anything since there is no clip length limit.


----------



## entoman (Nov 23, 2021)

HenryL said:


> Saw that the other day when they posted. I'm a little underwhelmed, they titled it a Final Review, but it's not a review at all but a quick update to their earlier preview. 'll save y'all some time:
> 
> 1. "I'd buy it over a 1DX III, but it's meh because 24mp".
> 2. "It's the only camera that will shoot full raw at 30fps, but it's meh because 24mp"
> ...


I think Canon miscalculated when they decided on the R3 specs.

A lot of people will be of course be perfectly happy with 24MP. Some may even prefer it....

But I think most would like the *option* to switch between 45MP and 22.5MP (or 48/24MP), which I think would be possible with dual-pixel tech.

A lot of people who are heavily invested in Canon will be disappointed that in terms of MP they are behind the Sony and Nikon flagships, and they'll be equally disappointed that they'll have to wait another year or more before Canon launches a truly competitive model (i.e. the R1) at double the cost of a Z9....

I've been with Canon for 11 years and for financial reasons I'm unlikely to change, but I have to be honest - if I could afford to switch systems my first choice would now be a Sony a1 and some lovely Sony glass including the 200-600mm.


----------



## entoman (Nov 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's often something with DPR and Canon. A few years back, their reviews came across as though if it didn't have >14 stops of DR (as DxO calculates their downsampled-to-8-MP sensor scores) and you couldn't lift the shadows 5 stops, it was crap.


I see that the Z9 has circa one stop less DR than the Z7ii, but that ain't gonna stop anyone buying the Z9.

Having said that, I'm firmly of the view that the more DR I can get, the better, although my R5 is more than satisfactory and can easily handle lifting shadows by 5 stops, with a little help from Topaz Denoise, of course.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 23, 2021)

entoman said:


> But I think most would like the *option* to switch between 45MP and 22.5MP (or 48/24MP), which I think would be possible with dual-pixel tech.


You're more likely to get a 48MP/12MP switch as interpolation by SQRT(0.5) in each linear direction would be fairly unlikely imho.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 23, 2021)

entoman said:


> [..]But I think most would like the *option* to switch between 45MP and 22.5MP (or 48/24MP), which I think would be possible with dual-pixel tech.[..]


Dual pixel is the other way, the R5 has 45M dual-pixels, so 90M sensels. Canon marketing never talks about it that way because the sensels share the same microlens and colour filter.


----------



## entoman (Nov 23, 2021)

kaihp said:


> You're more likely to get a 48MP/12MP switch as interpolation by SQRT(0.5) in each linear direction would be fairly unlikely imho.


Yes, that's a good point. The real "problem" that many have with high MP seems to relate to file size and hence buffer size and fps limitations. So for me, the best option would be a high res sensor (45-50MP), with the ability to switch to uncropped compressed RAWs on occasions when buffer and fps were more important than MP.

But Canon have made their decision and we have to live with it. They have deliberately kept the MP of the R3 lowish, largely I think for the purposes of market segmentation - a field where they are experts. The problem they have is that the R3 is very overpriced compared to the higher MP Sony a1 and the Nikon Z9, which have redefined flagship cameras in terms of specification and price.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> We’ve had this discussion before. The issue is their bias. Here’s an older example, but I’ve seen no evidence of change.


Yes, we have had this discussion before. All reviewers have biases and from my perspective, you just have to understand that. Bias does not negate the review whether it's DPR or The Digital Picture. You have your preferences in reviews and find that DPR isn't to your liking. I have mine and I don't have a problem with DPR. Generally, I think most reviewers are pretty weak and you have to go through quite a few of them to really get a sense for the pros and cons of any camera or lens. 

It doesn't bother me that they don't read the manuals. In fact, that may be purposeful in that most people never read the manuals and if the camera is well designed and intuitive, you should be able to pick it up and use it without having to scour through a manual. 

A consumer product review is not a document submitted to a court or to a scientific review panel. I see no reason to parse every word they use. On this forum there seems to be this conventional wisdom that DPR is hopelessly biased in favor of Sony or Nikon. I think people make too much of this perceived bias and if you feel they are biased, then just take that into account when you read the review.

As for this particular review, I found it to be pretty weak and seemed to be thrown together to get something online before the cameras ship.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 23, 2021)

unfocused said:


> [..]It doesn't bother me that they don't read the manuals. In fact, that may be purposeful in that most people never read the manuals and if the camera is well designed and intuitive, you should be able to pick it up and use it without having to scour through a manual.[..]


I read the manuals as soon as they become available, which nowadays is months before a pre-order ships. But even with reading the manual and having more 15+ years of experience with Canon cameras, I still pick up new things when watching Jared read the manual on youtube.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Nov 23, 2021)

Darrell Cadieux said:


> Jared thinks it beats out the A1...certainly in focus abilities. Nice thing too is that in 2 weeks those same focus abilities will be downloadable to my R5.


its not the focus abilities, it is super responsive and smarter than the R5 allegedly. The R5 does get fooled a lot.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Nov 23, 2021)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> The ‘review’ is not very thorough or scientific… there are many ways to get some more objective data from a camera by taking actual measurements. Statements like ‘oh it kinda looks a bit noisier to our eyes’ aren’t very meaningful.
> 
> 
> This is much more a subjective ‘impression’ of the camera.


I like real world reviews more than spec reviews. honestly i just look at the high iso noise section in spec reviews. seeing a person use it means more. I pay for quality and convenience.


----------



## john1970 (Nov 23, 2021)

kaihp said:


> You're more likely to get a 48MP/12MP switch as interpolation by SQRT(0.5) in each linear direction would be fairly unlikely imho.


Maybe we will have such a feature in a R1 where we can switch between 80 vs. 20 MP?? Pure speculation, but would be a great feature to have.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 23, 2021)

If it was possible, I'd prefer a "sports" camera reviewed by a sports photographer, and not by a "professional" reviewer.
And a hi-MP camera checked by a landscaper, for instance. That's why, apart from Brian's TDP, I no longer watch or read other reviews, unless generated by real users of a specific camera.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Nov 23, 2021)

Okay, so what your are saying is that unless you shoot video, you're better off to buy the R6 at less than half the price of the R3. You'd save a boat load of money which would buy you another lens? Why didn't you just come out and say it rather than hint around the edges?

I assume the obvious reason to not test the R3 against the R5 was that the R5 would blow the camera out of the water with its higher quality sensor. For those of us who had hoped for a Z9 Canon, color me disappointed and underwhelmed.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Nov 23, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Maybe we will have such a feature in a R1 where we can switch between 80 vs. 20 MP?? Pure speculation, but would be a great feature to have.


I'd hoped for that with the R3 but I'll save my money for the R1 but only if Canon doesn't release a 12mp R1 that shoots really fast poor quality images. It's funny how the competition can produce a high resolution camera but Canon can't?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2021)

entoman said:


> But I think most would like the *option* to switch between 45MP and 22.5MP (or 48/24MP), which I think would be possible with dual-pixel tech.


Possible but probably not in the way you intend. For DPAF, the pixels are all split vertically (which is why DPAF has trouble focusing on horizontal lines). That means that your hypothetical 45/48 MP image would have a 3:1 aspect ratio instead of the normal 3:2 (and thus viewing those images on any normal display would look like an old 4:3 TV show stretched to a 16:9 display, only worse…trust me, no one wants to look twice their normal width!).


----------



## unfocused (Nov 23, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> I assume the obvious reason to not test the R3 against the R5 was that the R5 would blow the camera out of the water with its higher quality sensor.


How is the R5 sensor higher quality? Or do you think higher resolution equates to higher quality?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2021)

unfocused said:


> How is the R5 sensor higher quality? Or do you think higher resolution equates to higher quality?


It’s got more megapickles, man, how can it not be higher quality? Anyone who says different is just stacking the BS(I).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> It's funny how the competition can produce a high resolution camera but Canon can't?


It’s funny how you don’t understand distinction between capability and choice. That’s ok, English is hard.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Nov 23, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> I like real world reviews more than spec reviews. honestly i just look at the high iso noise section in spec reviews. seeing a person use it means more. I pay for quality and convenience.


Yes, of course you still need real world, hands on experience for the qualitative aspects of the camera. But you shouldn’t really apply the same attitude to the aspects of the camera that can actually be measured more objectively. Hence me highlighting their ‘impression’ of the noise levels of the camera (which you also mentioned being a useful component of technical reviews).

example: many forum users here are seeing less (or equal) noise in the R3 files compared to R6 and S5 that were shown as points of comparison in the review. Who is right? Perhaps we would all have a better idea of the signal to noise ratio if it was actually measured.

Obviously DPReview is not aiming for this level of thoroughness in the technical aspects of their review… that’s fine… but I personally need more meaningful detail in something being called a ‘final review’…. Perhaps the written version will be much better…


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 23, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> I like real world reviews more than spec reviews. honestly i just look at the high iso noise section in spec reviews. seeing a person use it means more. I pay for quality and convenience.


I want to see more "unboxing" youtube videos!


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 23, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Maybe we will have such a feature in a R1 where we can switch between 80 vs. 20 MP?? Pure speculation, but would be a great feature to have.


The R1 wishlist includes quad pixel AF, global shutter (no mechanical shutter), fast eshutter sync speed, pixel shift high res, and~20mp on-the fly over sampled (no lossy compression/cRAW/S-RAW) at full 30fps unlimited buffer. Best of both worlds.
The question is whether am down-sampled image would be raw or only for jpgs. From my understanding, professional sports tend to output jpg and not raw for so this could be an option.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 23, 2021)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> ...But you shouldn’t really apply the same attitude to the aspects of the camera that can actually be measured more objectively...
> ...example: many forum users here are seeing less (or equal) noise in the R3 files compared to R6 and S5 that were shown as points of comparison in the review. Who is right? Perhaps we would all have a better idea of the signal to noise ratio if it was actually measured...



I get what you are saying. But on the other hand, as long as it looks good to you, what difference do the measurements make? Disregarding scientific or forensic applications where absolutes might matter, if the measurements show differences that are not visible to users or those viewing the images, it doesn't really matter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The R1 wishlist includes quad pixel AF, global shutter (no mechanical shutter), fast eshutter sync speed, pixel shift high res, and~20mp on-the fly over sampled (no lossy compression/cRAW/S-RAW) at full 30fps unlimited buffer.


…and a partridge in a pear tree. It’s a lovely list, and I’m sure we all wants the one camera to rule them all, my Precious. I’d recommend you start preparing now for the forthcoming disappointment.


----------



## dirtyvu (Nov 24, 2021)

I'm tired of these talking head reviews without backing up their statements. They should be more like Jared Polin who shows you pictures and videos. Heck, he even provides the RAW files. And I don't understand why DPReview can't get the equipment for more than a day or so. They even split usage over the course of a day! All these other reviewers had weeks with it.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> …and a partridge in a pear tree. It’s a lovely list, and I’m sure we all wants the one camera to rule them all, my Precious. I’d recommend you start preparing now for the forthcoming disappointment.


Well, in my defense, I did say wishlist and whilst I am not in the target audience for it....

The R1 needs to be better than the R3 and the R5. How they determine that is the question but it is fun to speculate. 

Neither the A1 or the Z9 can do high res @ 30fps in raw. Is this a processor limitation or bus speed or heat or?
Could dual Digic X processors provide enough grunt for downsampling 30fps @ 45mp to ~20MP jpg?
The Z9 has demonstrated removing the mechanical shutter so they are prepared to wear the DR hit (if that is the reason).
The R3 has a stacked sensor so it is reasonable to assume that a stacked sensor will also be used in a R1. A global shutter may effectively be in place with a fast enough stacked sensor.
Pixel shift could be a firmware update for R5/R6/R3. It isn't clear why Canon hasn't included it when implementation shouldn't be major challenge given the competition
QPAF is the logical extension to DPAF improving AF for horizontal lines - as you have mentioned. It may be impossible to implement or just expensive.

Ultimately, we are getting to minor differences at the pointy end. What would Canon marketing have to announce? 
They would hope that there is at least one new feature not available on the A1/Z9/R3/R5.
What feature would tempt you to upgrade from your new R3 to a R1?


----------



## RayValdez360 (Nov 24, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I want to see more "unboxing" youtube videos!


Yes, I love looking at 10,000 different people unboxing the same camera.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 24, 2021)

Are we kidding with these new ads??? The site is next to impossible to navigate now. I could at least use the site a few days ago, but now I can’t even press the Menu without going in an add. The top and bottom ones are hopelessly in the way…. Jeez….


----------



## kaihp (Nov 24, 2021)

Viggo said:


> Are we kidding with these new ads??? The site is next to impossible to navigate now. I could at least use the site a few days ago, but now I can’t even press the Menu without going in an add. The top and bottom ones are hopelessly in the way…. Jeez….


Forkert tråd å klage i, Viggo.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 24, 2021)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Yes, of course you still need real world, hands on experience for the qualitative aspects of the camera. But you shouldn’t really apply the same attitude to the aspects of the camera that can actually be measured more objectively. Hence me highlighting their ‘impression’ of the noise levels of the camera (which you also mentioned being a useful component of technical reviews).
> 
> example: many forum users here are seeing less (or equal) noise in the R3 files compared to R6 and S5 that were shown as points of comparison in the review. Who is right? Perhaps we would all have a better idea of the signal to noise ratio if it was actually measured.
> 
> Obviously DPReview is not aiming for this level of thoroughness in the technical aspects of their review… that’s fine… but I personally need more meaningful detail in something being called a ‘final review’…. Perhaps the written version will be much better…


Exactly what I meant.
"Real life" reviews by professional users PLUS a technical review by TDP's Brian. He is (my opinion) trying hard to remain objective, no matter which brand he is testing. Even though Canon friendly, he doesn't hesitate to praise a Nikon or a Sony.


----------



## GoldWing (Nov 24, 2021)

HenryL said:


> Saw that the other day when they posted. I'm a little underwhelmed, they titled it a Final Review, but it's not a review at all but a quick update to their earlier preview. 'll save y'all some time:
> 
> 1. "I'd buy it over a 1DX III, but it's meh because 24mp".
> 2. "It's the only camera that will shoot full raw at 30fps, but it's meh because 24mp"
> ...


They could have done a brief review in just two symbols 

*Z9*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> They could have done a brief review in just two symbols
> 
> *Z9*


I can do a brief review of your post

*BS*


----------



## Kit. (Nov 24, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> I'd hoped for that with the R3 but I'll save my money for the R1 but only if Canon doesn't release a 12mp R1 that shoots really fast poor quality images. It's funny how the competition can produce a high resolution camera but Canon can't?


DPAF is quite taxing when it comes to sensor data throughput.

For QPAF in R1, given the current state of the art, one could as well expect a 12-megaquadpixel sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2021)

Kit. said:


> DPAF is quite taxing when it comes to sensor data throughput.
> 
> For QPAF in R1, given the current state of the art, one could as well expect a 12-megaquadpixel sensor.


Might not be quad pixel, could be dual pixel with alternating rows split in orthogonal orientations. Canon has a patent on that the published a while back. Would accomplish the same goal with a lower computational load.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Might not be quad pixel, could be dual pixel with alternating rows split in orthogonal orientations. Canon has a patent on that the published a while back. Would accomplish the same goal with a lower computational load.


Not exactly the same goal: the focusing precision would be cut by half in at least one direction.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Not exactly the same goal: the focusing precision would be cut by half in at least one direction.


Are you suggesting that with DPAF the focusing accuracy is driven by a single row of pixels?  You may want to think about the size of even a Spot AF point.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are you suggesting that with DPAF the focusing accuracy is driven by a single row of pixels?


I am suggesting that with DPAF the focusing precision is limited to the pixel pitch.

Which in quasi-QPAF will be twice as low in the other direction.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2021)

Kit. said:


> I am suggesting that with DPAF the focusing precision is limited to the pixel pitch.


Aside from the fact that you do not seem to understand the difference between precision and accuracy (you’re not alone there, Canon’s marketeers use precision when they mean accuracy), DPAF does not determine the phase difference with a single pixel.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aside from the fact that you do not seem to understand the difference between precision and accuracy


What makes you think so?



neuroanatomist said:


> DPAF does not determine the phase difference with a single pixel.


I have never claimed it does.

However, when you only sample every second pixel in the vertical direction for the vertical phase difference, you shouldn't expect to be able to achieve pixel-precise focusing on horizontal lines in the general case.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2021)

Kit. said:


> What makes you think so?


You keep using the word precise or precision when you mean accurate or accuracy. Precision is repeatability, accuracy is closeness to true. An AF system that focuses on exactly the same spot 50 times in a row is highly precise. If that spot is 2 m behind where the camera is supposed to focus, the AF system is not accurate.



Kit. said:


> I have never claimed it does.
> 
> However, when you only sample every second pixel in the vertical direction for the vertical phase difference, you shouldn't expect to be able to achieve pixel-precise focusing on horizontal lines in the general case.


Groups of pixels are used for DPAF, you’re never going to get pixel-level accuracy. FYI, the Canon patent has double rows.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You keep using the word precise or precision when you mean accurate or accuracy. Precision is repeatability, accuracy is closeness to true. An AF system that focuses on exactly the same spot 50 times in a row is highly precise. If that spot is 2 m behind where the camera is supposed to focus, the AF system is not accurate.


And what makes you think that I _don't_ mean precision in this sense?



neuroanatomist said:


> Groups of pixels are used for DPAF, you’re never going to get pixel-level accuracy. FYI, the Canon patent has double rows.
> 
> View attachment 201349


That's even worse. Consider a horisontal border that needs to be focused on between the first and the second row (i.e. is projected there when the sensor is in focus).


----------



## john1970 (Nov 24, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> What feature would tempt you to upgrade from your new R3 to a R1?


For me it would have to be a set of features and not a single feature. QPAF and 80 MP vs. 20 MP pixel binning both in RAW would be two features that would make me consider upgrading. For me the R3 checks a lot of boxes (low high ISO noise, 14 bit RAW @ 30 fps, excellent ergonomics) so the R1 will have to be spectacular.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2021)

Kit. said:


> And what makes you think that I _don't_ mean precision in this sense?


Do you? So you’d prefer a camera that missed focus by the exact same amount with every shot to one that nailed focus most of the time?



Kit. said:


> That's even worse. Consider a horisontal border that needs to be focused on between the first and the second row (i.e. is projected there when the sensor is in focus).


A horizontal border that is so narrow it doesn’t span a two-pixel gap? Assuming the R1 has an AA filter, that’s likely unresolvable. Sounds like you’re caught up in the theory of the process, not the actual use.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 24, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Forkert tråd å klage i, Viggo.


 Not at all, this is a thread with loads of activity


----------



## entoman (Nov 24, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> I'd hoped for that with the R3 but I'll save my money for the R1 but only if Canon doesn't release a 12mp R1 that shoots really fast poor quality images. It's funny how the competition can produce a high resolution camera but Canon can't?


I think Canon are absolutely capable of producing a high resolution (pro) camera. The fact that they have produced both the R5 and the R3 proves that to be true. The fact is that they have *chosen* not to launch it yet. Clearly the R3 is a test-bed for the new eye-control AF, and has been deliberately kept to 24MP for market segmentation purposes. They have held back on the R1 while they learn more about how to perfect the eye-control AF. The R1, when it is eventually released, will almost certainly have all of the best features of the R5 and R3, and probably a couple of nice surprises thrown in.

What concerns me more is that Canon have overpriced the R3 in comparison with the Sony a1 and more importantly perhaps the Nikon Z9. The number of people who will switch systems is probably very low, as most prospective purchasers of R3 and R1 will already be heavily invested in Canon glass. But they'll certainly question whether Canon is taking them for a very expensive (some would say extortionate) ride, if they compare with Sony or Nikon. And it's not just the bodies that are overpriced - just look at the price of the Canon 100-500mm and compare it to the considerably cheaper Sony 200-600mm. I think most sports and wildlife photographers would prefer the extra 100mm at the tele end, as chosen by Sony. The Sony has a wider max aperture too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2021)

entoman said:


> And it's not just the bodies that are overpriced - just look at the price of the Canon 100-500mm and compare it to the considerably cheaper Sony 200-600mm.


I bet Canon will sell far more RF 100-400 lenses than Sony sells 200-600 (or Canon sells 100-500).


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I bet Canon will sell far more RF 100-400 lenses than Sony sells 200-600 (or Canon sells 100-500).


EF vs RF 100-400?
How would we know the sale volume of a particular lens from Canon or any OEM?
Clearly there are shortages so Canon will sell all the RF100-500mm that they can make so price becomes somewhat irrelevant.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> What concerns me more is that Canon have overpriced the R3 in comparison with the Sony a1 and more importantly perhaps the Nikon Z9. The number of people who will switch systems is probably very low, as most prospective purchasers of R3 and R1 will already be heavily invested in Canon glass. But they'll certainly question whether Canon is taking them for a very expensive (some would say extortionate) ride, if they compare with Sony or Nikon. And it's not just the bodies that are overpriced - just look at the price of the Canon 100-500mm and compare it to the considerably cheaper Sony 200-600mm. I think most sports and wildlife photographers would prefer the extra 100mm at the tele end, as chosen by Sony. The Sony has a wider max aperture too.


Canon need to stay profitable to release all the new goodies that we are rumouring about  
If they believe that their users see value in their comparatively expensive system then they have made the right strategic decision.
But that also means that migration from Canon to Sony/Fuji/Nikon etc is quite possible as it isn't the best value for money choice. Reducing price in the future (or cashbacks etc) with plentiful supply is easy. Increasing prices are harder.
The Sony 200-600mm is also heavier and slower and bigger than the RF100-500mm. I know which I would (and have) chosen.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> EF vs RF 100-400?
> How would we know the sale volume of a particular lens from Canon or any OEM?
> Clearly there are shortages so Canon will sell all the RF100-500mm that they can make so price becomes somewhat irrelevant.


I’m talking about the RF 100-400 vs RF 100-500 or Sony FE 200-600.

I stated, “I bet,” but of course we won’t ever have actual data. We can make guesses based on things like Amazon sales rankings, but they’re just guesses.

Right now on Amazon, the RF 100-400 is #24, the RF 100-500 is #31, and the Sony FE 200-600 is #34.


----------



## entoman (Nov 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I bet Canon will sell far more RF 100-400 lenses than Sony sells 200-600 (or Canon sells 100-500).


Absolutely true, but that's due mostly to Canon's marketing expertise, and the simple fact that there are vastly greater numbers of Canon owners out here. If the number of Canon and Sony users was similar, it's likely that the Sony lens would sell in greater quantities, because it's considerably cheaper. Most of the folk who buy these super-telezooms will be sports or wildlife photographers, and I'd wager that most would find a 200-600mm focal length more useful than 100-500mm. IOt would be rather nice if Canon brought out a 200-600mm themselves, but they'd probably charge double what Sony sells theirs for.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> Absolutely true, but that's due mostly to Canon's marketing expertise, and the simple fact that there are vastly greater numbers of Canon owners out here. If the number of Canon and Sony users was similar, it's likely that the Sony lens would sell in greater quantities, because it's considerably cheaper.


I think you misread. The RF 100-*400*mm f/5.6-8 costs $650.


----------



## Bert63 (Nov 25, 2021)

I try very hard to like these guys, and when I take off my objectivity hat it's very easy to do, but in all honesty they are all over the map.


----------



## entoman (Nov 25, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The Sony 200-600mm is also heavier and slower and bigger than the RF100-500mm. I know which I would (and have) chosen.


Sony 200-600mm F5.6-6.3
Canon 100-500mm F4.5-7.1

At the tele end, where it matters most, the Canon is half a stop slower than the Sony.

The Sony isn't as compact admittedly, and yes it is heavier, so the Canon scores for handheld use. On a gimbal, or when used on a beanbag from a vehicle (as per safaris), that advantage is lost. I think it's probably true that most users of telezooms tend to use the longer focal lengths a lot more than the short end. I can't speak for sports photographers, but birders and wildlife photographers would I think mostly prefer the focal length range of the Sony.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m talking about the RF 100-400 vs RF 100-500 or Sony FE 200-600.
> 
> I stated, “I bet,” but of course we won’t ever have actual data. We can make guesses based on things like Amazon sales rankings, but they’re just guesses.
> 
> Right now on Amazon, the RF 100-400 is #24, the RF 100-500 is #31, and the Sony FE 200-600 is #34.


There is the Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS as well of course


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> There is the Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS as well of course


And Sigma, Tamron and Fuji 100-400 lenses. And a Nikon 80-400mm. What was your point?


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> Sony 200-600mm F5.6-6.3
> Canon 100-500mm F4.5-7.1
> 
> At the tele end, where it matters most, the Canon is half a stop slower than the Sony.
> ...


If only that both lenses could be used interchangeably between Sony and Canon systems and then it would be a valid comparison  
Strangely enough, I will be shooting waterfalls tomorrow in the Blue Mountains with my EF16-35mm/4 but also taking my RF100-500mm in case of telephoto landscape and perhaps an occasional bit of wildlife. Weight, size and not fast aperture are the key criteria in tomorrow's use case. Starting at 200mm would be too much in my case.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> And Sigma, Tamron and Fuji 100-400 lenses. And a Nikon 80-400mm. What was your point?


"I bet Canon will sell far more RF 100-400 lenses than Sony sells 200-600 (or Canon sells 100-500)."
"Right now on Amazon, the RF 100-400 is #24, the RF 100-500 is #31, and the Sony FE 200-600 is #34."

We should include all the Canon and Sony lenses in the focal range if we are making comparisons on volumes in a market segment


----------



## entoman (Nov 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think you misread. The RF 100-*400*mm f/5.6-8 costs $650.


Come on neuro, that's comparing apricots with carrots.

The RF 100-400mm is a budget lens, not built to the same standard as an L version.
It's a cheap option but can in no way be compared with the very solid, optically superb Sony 200-600mm, or with the EF 100-400mm or RF 100-500mm.

Here are the current UK prices:

Sony 200-600mm - £1329 (including £100 cashback)
Canon 100-500mm - £2979 (no cashback available)

I've handled both of these lenses while on safari in Kenya a couple of weeks ago. Build quality looks about the same to me. Optically both are superb, I doubt if anyone could tell images from them apart. The Canon is lighter and can be fitted in a standard rucksack. The weight is pretty irrelevant if the lens is on a gimbal, or is being used on a beanbag in a vehicle. I had been thinking about getting the Canon 100-500mm to replace my EF100-400mmL, but if I wasn't already tied into the Canon system (2 bodies, 8 lenses, 3 flashguns), or if I had £10K going spare, a Sony a1 and 200-600mm would be extremely tempting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> Come on neuro, that's comparing apricots with carrots.
> 
> The RF 100-400mm is a budget lens, not built to the same standard as an L version.
> It's a cheap option but can in no way be compared with the very solid, optically superb Sony 200-600mm, or with the EF or RF 100-400mm.
> ...


Yes, the RF 100-400 is inexpensive. @AlanF has shown it’s optically very good, making it a real bargain. There’s a lot of overlap in the ranges, the use cases are similar, so it’s a reasonable comparison. It’s not as if I said the 50/1.8 will sell better.

In the US, the Canon 100-500 is $2800 and the Sony 200-600 is $1900, that’s a very different scenario than UK pricing (and the US is a much larger market).


----------



## john1970 (Nov 25, 2021)

entoman said:


> . And it's not just the bodies that are overpriced - just look at the price of the Canon 100-500mm and compare it to the considerably cheaper Sony 200-600mm. I think most sports and wildlife photographers would prefer the extra 100mm at the tele end, as chosen by Sony. The Sony has a wider max aperture too.


Frankly, I prefer the 1.5 lb lighter weight of the Canon and I would question if a third of a stop aperture (f6.3 vs. f7.1) makes a significant improvement.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 25, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I want to see more "unboxing" youtube videos!


----------



## JamesG25 (Nov 25, 2021)

Just got my shipping notification from B&H. My R3 is on the way. I got my order in a few minutes after the official announcement of the R3.


----------



## ozturert (Nov 25, 2021)

I love these guys but it is obvious they don't have any experience with sports or similar photography where this camera will excel.


----------



## SteveOLV (Nov 25, 2021)

I think it's interesting that they keep talking about comparing the R3 to the apparent Nikon & Sony flagships... I don't think Canon is touting the R3 as their "flagship" camera, just happens to be their latest.. We'll see what happens if and when Canon launches an R1 camera..


----------



## RayValdez360 (Nov 25, 2021)

SteveOLV said:


> I think it's interesting that they keep talking about comparing the R3 to the apparent Nikon & Sony flagships... I don't think Canon is touting the R3 as their "flagship" camera, just happens to be their latest.. We'll see what happens if and when Canon launches an R1 camera..


Actually my issue is that they didnt try to compare it with the R5 or the R. At least to show how much the system changed since the R


----------



## Jethro (Nov 25, 2021)

So, far from being actually a 'final review', DPR now publish this:

canon-eos-r3-studio-scene-published

"we can see off the bat that the R3 turns in competitive detail in its class. Differences between it and other cameras with similar resolution will predominantly come down to their anti-aliasing filters". 

On DR: "We were curious as to what extent – if any – the EOS R3's super-fast electronic shutter might be adding noise, and the answer appears to be 'not much'. You have to get into the super-deep shadows, pushing between 5 and 6 stops, to really see a difference."

Apparently there's still a 'full review' coming ...


----------



## sanj (Nov 26, 2021)

They do not know what they are talking about in most of this video.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> ...
> What concerns me more is that Canon have overpriced the R3 in comparison with the Sony a1 and more importantly perhaps the Nikon Z9. The number of people who will switch systems is probably very low, as most prospective purchasers of R3 and R1 will already be heavily invested in Canon glass. But they'll certainly question whether Canon is taking them for a very expensive (some would say extortionate) ride, if they compare with Sony or Nikon. And it's not just the bodies that are overpriced - just look at the price of the Canon 100-500mm and compare it to the considerably cheaper Sony 200-600mm. I think most sports and wildlife photographers would prefer the extra 100mm at the tele end, as chosen by Sony. The Sony has a wider max aperture too.


I have read numerous photographers who have used both, say they prefer the R5 to the A1. Based on that, I would say the A1 is way overpriced. it is also not an integrated grip body and almost certainly nowhere near as rugged. It is considered a flagship, only becuase Sony does not have an actual comparable flagship to either the R3 or the Z9, in my opinion. If the eye-controlled AF works well, than it is the Sony and the Nikon that can't compare with the Canon R3. It seems that the amount of MPs is the determining factor for pricing according to many, which seems quite ludicrous. 

Yes, Canon L lenses are expensive, but they seem to priced in the same range as the Nikon S lenses - their highest end mirrorless lenses. If the Sony 200-600 is cheaper, then you can be sure that is a lower quality lens. I haven't tried it so I don't know, but I have tried the 100-500 and it is the sharpest zoom lens in that category that I have ever used. it is also over 700 grams lighter than the Sony, which for many users makes it the more desirable choice - certainly that would be a huge factor for me. No way I would buy an over 2,000 g lens for my wildlife excursions.


----------



## Frodo (Nov 28, 2021)

Jethro said:


> So, far from being actually a 'final review', DPR now publish this:
> 
> canon-eos-r3-studio-scene-published
> 
> ...


There was discussion earlier about the R3 vs R6 sensors. I downloaded the RAW files for the R3 and R6 from DPReview, imported into LR and exported as 5500x3667 jpgs (lightly bigger than native R3 resolution. The biggest differences that I noted is that at higher ISO (6400 and 12800), the R3 files are slightly underexposed compared to the R6 files. Autotone in LR gives the R6 file -0.17 and the R3 files +0.17. The R3 files seemed more neutral in colour and there may have been some false colour generated by up-resing R6 files. These are relatively minor issues. Looking at resolution, noise and DR from those charts, I'd say that the difference is less than those mentioned before (exposure and colour). Certainly I don't see a substantial difference in IQ that might be attributed to the change in technology (or the slight increase in resolution).


----------



## entoman (Nov 28, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I have read numerous photographers who have used both, say they prefer the R5 to the A1.


Swings and roundabouts really. For me, the R5 does a great job and has very good ergonomics, but the A1 *possibly* has a slight edge when it comes to subject acquisition and tracking. The R5 is a bargain, the A1 is overpriced (but so IMO is the R3, especially since the launch of the Z9).



Czardoom said:


> If the Sony 200-600 is cheaper, then you can be sure that is a lower quality lens.


I've physically handled both, and they seem comparable in build quality. I don't know how they compare optically, as I've only seen the results from the 200-600mm, which are excellent. The price difference is huge, but I won't be getting the Sony simply because I can't justify the overall cost of switching systems, and as I said, I'm pretty happy with the R5. I guess what I'm really whining about is the choice of focal lengths. For bird photography the extra 100mm at the tele end is really valuable, and the short end far less so. The Sigma 150-600mm Sport in EF mount is probably the best match for me, but it does seem to have a few reliability issues.



Czardoom said:


> ... it is also over 700 grams lighter than the Sony, which for many users makes it the more desirable choice - certainly that would be a huge factor for me. No way I would buy an over 2,000 g lens for my wildlife excursions.


Yes, a lighter lens would be nice (although perhaps not the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary, which seems like the Sports version to get very mixed reviews), but I already have EF 100-400mm L and RF 800mm F11 for handheld work. What I want is to be able to encompass as closely as possible the focal length range of both of those lenses so that I'm not constantly swapping back and forth between lenses when shooting from a safari jeep in dusty Africa (although I swapped lenses maybe a dozen times each day in those conditions a couple of weeks ago, and didn't get a single dust speck on the sensor of my R5).


----------



## maulanawale (Nov 29, 2021)

entoman said:


> Swings and roundabouts really. For me, the R5 does a great job and has very good ergonomics, but the A1 *possibly* has a slight edge when it comes to subject acquisition and tracking. The R5 is a bargain, the A1 is overpriced (but so IMO is the R3, especially since the launch of the Z9).
> 
> 
> I've physically handled both, and they seem comparable in build quality. I don't know how they compare optically, as I've only seen the results from the 200-600mm, which are excellent. The price difference is huge, but I won't be getting the Sony simply because I can't justify the overall cost of switching systems, and as I said, I'm pretty happy with the R5. I guess what I'm really whining about is the choice of focal lengths. For bird photography the extra 100mm at the tele end is really valuable, and the short end far less so. The Sigma 150-600mm Sport in EF mount is probably the best match for me, but it does seem to have a few reliability issues.
> ...


I had the 200-600 when I used to shoot Sony and it was a decent lens, it didn't get along well with my A7RIV though. 
I liked that it is internal focusing but that makes it rather large for what it offers in terms of FL and aperture.
I always had the impression that they made it big and white to make it even more appealing to lower budgets (like mine) because it does make you feel like you're shooting some serious pro level glass. Results don't necessarily match that experience though.

Reg your last paragraph, and please take this with a bucketload of salt, that's why I see the Oly 150-400F.45 TC1.25x as a very interesting lens on it's own merit, shame it's got to be paired with dated M43 sensors, because in terms of (effective) range, usability and IQ, it's a dream lens. Wish physics allowed such a lens for FF or even APS-c.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 29, 2021)

Eye control AF related review:


----------



## entoman (Nov 29, 2021)

maulanawale said:


> I had the 200-600 when I used to shoot Sony and it was a decent lens, it didn't get along well with my A7RIV though.
> I liked that it is internal focusing but that makes it rather large for what it offers in terms of FL and aperture.
> I always had the impression that they made it big and white to make it even more appealing to lower budgets (like mine) because it does make you feel like you're shooting some serious pro level glass. Results don't necessarily match that experience though.
> 
> Reg your last paragraph, and please take this with a bucketload of salt, that's why I see the Oly 150-400F.45 TC1.25x as a very interesting lens on it's own merit, shame it's got to be paired with dated M43 sensors, because in terms of (effective) range, usability and IQ, it's a dream lens. Wish physics allowed such a lens for FF or even APS-c.


Interesting and useful comments abhout the Sony lens, thanks.

To be honest I think that despite their thermal-expansion reducing advantage, the whole white lens thing is overstated. Regardless of whether it's done by Canon, Sony, Minolta or anyone else it's really nothing more than a marketing ploy. Nikon have stuck with black for their big primes and telezooms, so I don't see a necessity for them to be white.

In fact white lenses are a pain, because wildlife photographers like myself have to fork out for camo covers, as the bright white finish just attracts the attention of nervous animals and birds, They can spot it a mile away.


----------



## Darrell Cadieux (Dec 23, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> its not the focus abilities, it is super responsive and smarter than the R5 allegedly. The R5 does get fooled a lot.


Since this post we have the new focus update. It doesn't get fooled any more. This focus system is unreal...mindblowing in fact.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 23, 2021)

Darrell Cadieux said:


> Since this post we have the new focus update. It doesn't get fooled any more. This focus system is unreal...mindblowing in fact.


Good news! It's in Canon's interest to keep the R5 competitive with the Z9 as a high megapixel rival. So, in that vein, R5 owners should get the benefits of R3 firmware upgrades.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 23, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Good news! It's in Canon's interest to keep the R5 competitive with the Z9 as a high megapixel rival. So, in that vein, R5 owners should get the benefits of R3 firmware upgrades.


Hopefully it will be more successful than the 1.5.0 firmware, it has ruined my camera…


----------



## AlanF (Dec 23, 2021)

Viggo said:


> Hopefully it will be more successful than the 1.5.0 firmware, it has ruined my camera…


You are very unlucky. My R5 and R6 are still fine after updating to 1.5.0. Perhaps there is a problem with your motherboard?


----------

