# Review: Canon EOS R3 by The Digital Picture



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 29, 2021)

> Bryan at The-Digital-Picture has completed his review of the Canon EOS R3. Canon’s latest full-frame mirrorless camera which began shipping last week.
> Bryan’s closing thoughts
> With each new high-end camera iteration, it becomes more difficult to be happy with the newfound annoyances (additional steps or efforts required to get the same job done) of the older models, and the R3 brings out those inadequacies of the other models. The R3 has professional-grade build quality combined with arguably the best AF system ever placed in an interchangeable lens camera. The Eye Control AF, subject detection and tracking performance, Smart Controllers, and a myriad of other features give this camera a review-time advantage over all other models.
> The performance of the Canon EOS R3 suggests flagship 1-series membership, and...



Continue reading...


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 29, 2021)

I don't know why he would Multi-shot Noise Reduction in RAW.
The entire point of shooting in RAW is to do that type of thing ourselves


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I don't know why he would Multi-shot Noise Reduction in RAW.
> The entire point of shooting in RAW is to do that type of thing ourselves


I believe the idea is a single RAW file with the MSNR applied, i.e the multiple shots combined into a single RAW file with lower noise. There are dedicated astrophotography postprocessing apps that do that sort of thing (not on RAW files, though), but I'm not aware of any standard RAW converters that allow combining RAW images to reduce noise. The concept is similar to long exposure NR, where the camera takes a dark frame after the shot and subtracts it from the primary image before writing the RAW file.

Note that there are a couple of workarounds to achieve the same ends. The way to get a RAW file is to use Canon's multiple exposure feature and set the exposure control method to Average – that lets you take up to 9 exposures to combine (which would give better NR than the 4 exposures of MSNR). Another is to simply take multiple, successive exposures and combine them in Photoshop (overlay them and adjust the opacity to equally weight them (i.e. opacity = 100/image number, so the bottom image is 100% opacity, the second is 50% opacity, the 3rd is 33%, 4th is 25%, etc.).


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 29, 2021)

Woah.
IPB Lite can record more than a day of 4K video


----------



## iheartcanon (Nov 29, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I don't know why he would Multi-shot Noise Reduction in RAW.
> The entire point of shooting in RAW is to do that type of thing ourselves


 "The downsides to Multi-Shot Noise Reduction include: MSNR is currently available only with JPG output"


----------



## kaihp (Nov 29, 2021)

I'm confused by this paragraph:


> The R3 focuses extremely fast. I couldn't tell the AF speed difference between the R5 and the Canon EOS 5Ds R during side-by-side testing, and the R5's AF system can keep up with a fast-moving horse at close distances. The more advanced R3's AF system is suitable for nearly all pursuits.



Bryan starts saying the R3 focuses very fast, and then goes on rambling about the R5 vs the venerable 5DsR. Maybe this is a left-over from his R5 review?

Did I miss anything about the 5DsR being the uber-reference for fast focusing? Didn't the 5DsR have the same focus system as the 5D3? - the 1Dx focus system is vastly better than the 5D3 focus in my experience.

*Edit:* Bryan has now updated the above paragraph to:


> The R3 focuses extremely fast. My perception is that the R3 focuses slightly faster than the already fast EOS R5 during side-by-side testing with the same lens. The R3's advanced AF system is suitable for nearly all pursuits.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I believe the idea is a single RAW file with the MSNR applied, i.e the multiple shots combined into a single RAW file with lower noise. There are dedicated astrophotography postprocessing apps that do that sort of thing (not on RAW files, though), but I'm not aware of any standard RAW converters that allow combining RAW images to reduce noise. The concept is similar to long exposure NR, where the camera takes a dark frame after the shot and subtracts it from the primary image before writing the RAW file.
> 
> Note that there are a couple of workarounds to achieve the same ends. The way to get a RAW file is to use Canon's multiple exposure feature and set the exposure control method to Average – that lets you take up to 9 exposures to combine (which would give better NR than the 4 exposures of MSNR). Another is to simply take multiple, successive exposures and combine them in Photoshop (overlay them and adjust the opacity to equally weight them (i.e. opacity = 100/image number, so the bottom image is 100% opacity, the second is 50% opacity, the 3rd is 33%, 4th is 25%, etc.).


You can stack and align RAW files in PS and output the mean values in a variety of formats. I just checked it out on some iso25,600 RAW files and an output jpeg has reduced noise. It doesn't output to RAW but Topaz has a jpeg to RAW converter!


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You can stack and align RAW files in PS and output the mean values in a variety of formats. I just checked it out on some iso25,600 RAW files and an output jpeg has reduced noise. It doesn't output to RAW but Topaz has a jpeg to RAW converter!


Deep Sky stacker also does this with RAWs, but you wouldn't want to use it on a terrestrial image. Or at least the few times I tried it did not go well. 

_Brian


----------



## AlanF (Nov 29, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Deep Sky stacker also does this with RAWs, but you wouldn't want to use it on a terrestrial image. Or at least the few times I tried it did not go well.
> 
> _Brian


Stacking with PS is useful. It’s one way of doing focus stack using the blend option, for example.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You can stack and align RAW files in PS and output the mean values in a variety of formats. I just checked it out on some iso25,600 RAW files and an output jpeg has reduced noise. It doesn't output to RAW but Topaz has a jpeg to RAW converter!


I didn’t know PS handled RAW files directly. When you open a RAW file, doesn’t it use ACR to process them into PS (after you select the images and click Open)?


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I didn’t know PS handled RAW files directly. When you open a RAW file, doesn’t it use ACR to process them into PS (after you select the images and click Open)?


Direct from LR you can ‘open as layers‘ many RAW images in a single PS document. You can save the resulting file as a ‘RAW’ file formatted TIF.

I have been doing this for years to reduce noise and to create composite images.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Direct from LR…


I’ve never used LR.


----------



## jam05 (Nov 30, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Direct from LR you can ‘open as layers‘ many RAW images in a single PS document. You can save the resulting file as a ‘RAW’ file formatted TIF.
> 
> I have been doing this for years to reduce noise and to create composite images.


PS uses it's ACR engine for the RAW images. LR was based on ACR but it's RAW processing is not the same RAW processing. To use ACR in LR one must select the Edit in command. However it defeats the whole purpose of using LR. ACR on its own is like eating store purchased Mac & cheese


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I didn’t know PS handled RAW files directly. When you open a RAW file, doesn’t it use ACR to process them into PS (after you select the images and click Open)?


Don’t use “Open”; go to “scripts” in the menu. You can then load automatically JPEG’s or RAWs into layers. Then select all layers and do the necessary editing.


----------



## navastronia (Nov 30, 2021)

kaihp said:


> I'm confused by this paragraph:
> 
> 
> Bryan starts saying the R3 focuses very fast, and then goes on rambling about the R5 vs the venerable 5DsR. Maybe this is a left-over from his R5 review?
> ...


Yes, I think it's just a mistake. He must have meant to write R3 and he uses R5 in several instances.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 30, 2021)

jam05 said:


> PS uses it's ACR engine for the RAW images. LR was based on ACR but it's RAW processing is not the same RAW processing. To use ACR in LR one must select the Edit in command. However it defeats the whole purpose of using LR. ACR on its own is like eating store purchased Mac & cheese


I don't really understand how any of that relates to my point, you can open any number of RAW files in PS as layers direct from LR. Obviously, if you actually use it!

You can then output the result as a TIF based RAW file and do whatever superior manipulations you'd like. Personally, after seeing so many PS experts do their magic there is very little I have seen those experts can't match or better so getting any result you desire is really more a matter of skill and knowledge. I learnt this long ago when a Canadian based PS retouching/finishing pro asked to retouch one of my images, the result was so far beyond anything I was then capable of.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 30, 2021)

jam05 said:


> PS uses it's ACR engine for the RAW images. LR was based on ACR but it's RAW processing is not the same RAW processing. To use ACR in LR one must select the Edit in command. However it defeats the whole purpose of using LR. ACR on its own is like eating store purchased Mac & cheese


What's your source for this or are you just making stuff up? 

After a quick internet search I could find no reliable source that claimed that the Raw processing in ACR is any different than Lightroom. But, I found several good sources that said that it is the same Raw processing. The interfaces are different and Lightroom offers file management, but in terms of actually processing Raw images, I believe they are the same. I would also note that every time Adobe updates Lightroom with a new feature, they also add that feature to Camera Raw. The latest example being the masking tools that were recently added.

Please cite your source.


----------



## StandardLumen (Nov 30, 2021)

This is a very useful, thorough review. However, still no one has done what I am most interested to see, which is an image quality comparison between the R3 and R5 where the R3 images are scaled up to R5 size. In this review, it is stated that a better comparison would be to scale the R5 images down to R3 size, and depending on how you work that may be most relevant to you, but for me I really want to know just how much quality I would be losing with the R3 vs the R5 when making a large print of a cropped image.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 30, 2021)

StandardLumen said:


> This is a very useful, thorough review. However, still no one has done what I am most interested to see, which is an image quality comparison between the R3 and R5 where the R3 images are scaled up to R5 size. In this review, it is stated that a better comparison would be to scale the R5 images down to R3 size, and depending on how you work that may be most relevant to you, but for me I really want to know just how much quality I would be losing with the R3 vs the R5 when making a large print of a cropped image.


If I was you and that was the important part for me I’d download some of the readily available RAW files and test it yourself.

I’d use the super resolution function in PS, or something similar, but then the argument becomes you can do the same to an R5. Only you can decide what ‘enough’ is.





__





Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> What's your source for this or are you just making stuff up?
> 
> After a quick internet search I could find no reliable source that claimed that the Raw processing in ACR is any different than Lightroom. But, I found several good sources that said that it is the same Raw processing. The interfaces are different and Lightroom offers file management, but in terms of actually processing Raw images, I believe they are the same. I would also note that every time Adobe updates Lightroom with a new feature, they also add that feature to Camera Raw. The latest example being the masking tools that were recently added.
> 
> Please cite your source.


My understanding was the basic demosaicing, gamma curves and color handling were the same in both, but they did have minor differences in other functions. For years NR in LR sucked whereas ACR did a much more sympathetic job. But in more recent iterations and with enhanced controls and a more similar UI I’m not sure even those earlier detail changes are true. Indeed I put minor differences between the two programs as glitches, bugs, and ‘features’ now!


----------



## Joules (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Another is to simply take multiple, successive exposures and combine them in Photoshop (overlay them and adjust the opacity to equally weight them (i.e. opacity = 100/image number, so the bottom image is 100% opacity, the second is 50% opacity, the 3rd is 33%, 4th is 25%, etc.).


Alternatively to changing the opacity by hand, you can also do this by selecting all your layers, turning them into a smart object and then setting the blend mode to average. Processing into a smart object usually takes quite a while though. But is does give some other useful blend modes like median or max which allow creating sort of synthetic long exposures.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 30, 2021)

navastronia said:


> Yes, I think it's just a mistake. He must have meant to write R3 and he uses R5 in several instances.


That definitiety makes sense, but why is Bryan comparing to the 5DsR?

Time to fill out his contact form...

Edit: After searching the R5 review, I can see that the second sentence is copied verbatim from the R5 review. When reviewing the R5, comparing to the similar pixel-count 5DsR makes sense, but comparing the AF system of the R3 with the venerable 5DsR does _not_ makes sense IMHO. Comparing to the 1DX series (Marks I, II or II) would make much more sense.


----------



## entoman (Nov 30, 2021)

navastronia said:


> Yes, I think it's just a mistake. He must have meant to write R3 and he uses R5 in several instances.


For context, I own a R5 and a 5DMkiv, and have previously owned the 5DS.

5DS/5DSR have comparatively slow AF acquisition, especially in low light, and are both pretty hopeless at tracking. When using 100-400mm and 1.4x extender, which reduces maximum aperture to F8, only the central AF spot is active.

5DMkiv has very fast AF acquisition, even in low light, and does a reasonable job of tracking birds (and even butterflies) in flight. All AF points are active at F8.

R5 has very fast acquisition (marginally faster than 5DMkiv) but is much more accurate. It is extremely efficient at tracking faces and pretty good at tracking birds. The animal-eye AF is very sticky, even when subjects are quite small in the frame - it does sometimes jump onto another part of the bird/animal, but hardly ever jumps to the background.

Bryan at Digital-Picture knows Canon cameras inside out, so his comment was clearly a copy and paste error that got overlooked.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> Bryan at Digital-Picture knows Canon cameras inside out, so his comment was clearly a copy and paste error that got overlooked.



Looking over the R5 review and comparing it to the R3 review, I found that a very large amount of text and images were copy-pasta. Sure, the focus systems and the points he wants to make are similar, but he really shouldn't be showing R5 data (photos) to prove a point in an R3 review, when the R3 wasn't used for the particular test (e.g. eye and head tracking).

To me, this is starting to detract from the trustworthiness of the individual reviews.


----------



## entoman (Nov 30, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Looking over the R5 review and comparing it to the R3 review, I found that a very large amount of text and images were copy-pasta. Sure, the focus systems and the points he wants to make are similar, but he really shouldn't be showing R5 data (photos) to prove a point in an R3 review, when the R3 wasn't used for the particular test (e.g. eye and head tracking).
> 
> To me, this is starting to detract from the trustworthiness of the individual reviews.


Yes I agree, it's very tempting to take short cuts and use copy/paste, then edit as necessary afterwards, but it can lead to silly mistakes and make the author look less reliable. Copy/paste is standard practice for authors writing multiple articles about similar subjects, but we need to be meticulous in proof-reading. It can also get a bit boring reading the same text, with just a few words switched.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2021)

He has corrected the mistakes now. At the very least, his write ups are backed with evidence and useful data and genuine knowledge, unlike the garbage spewed out by so many so-called YouTube "experts". His reviews of the R3 and the R5 (and R6) don't bode well for the future of ovfs.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> Yes I agree, it's very tempting to take short cuts and use copy/paste, then edit as necessary afterwards, but it can lead to silly mistakes and make the author look less reliable.


Sir, we are in violent agreement


----------



## kaihp (Nov 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> He has corrected the mistakes now. At the very least, his write ups are backed with evidence and useful data and genuine knowledge, unlike the garbage spewed out by so many so-called YouTube "experts". His reviews of the R3 and the R5 (and R6) don't bode well for the future of ovfs.


Thanks Alan. Same paragraph now says:


> The R3 focuses extremely fast. My perception is that the R3 focuses slightly faster than the already fast EOS R5 during side-by-side testing with the same lens. The R3's advanced AF system is suitable for nearly all pursuits.


Interesting that the R3 only focuses "slightly faster" than the R5, as I found there was a significant difference between the 5D3 and the 1DX bodies. Of course, if the R5 is already very quick, then it is going to be hard to improve, and the perception of the improvement can be minute.

Absolutely agree on Bryan' reviews being backed up with evidence and useful data (like the database of test chart shots with different lens/body combinations).

I haven't received a reply to my email question, though. But the primary point is that he has corrected the text on the page.

Edit: email from Bryan received


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Thanks Alan. Same paragraph now says:
> 
> Interesting that the R3 only focuses "slightly faster" than the R5, as I found there was a significant difference between the 5D3 and the 1DX bodies. Of course, if the R5 is already very quick, then it is going to be hard to improve, and the perception of the improvement can be minute.
> 
> ...


The only thing I don't like is his lens charts, which I'll repeat here to the boredom of some. His image quality are just a rough guide, but no more than that, and some take them too seriously.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 30, 2021)

I remember reading Bryan's reviews about the first L lenses I bought, back in 2005. We've had a lot of water under the bridge since then, and I know I'm not getting any younger. Auto-pilot, phoning it in, cut-and-paste...They do become more tempting as time goes by...


----------



## NKD (Nov 30, 2021)

Quality review & pics as usual 
I just love the look of this new 1d style body, cant wait to hold one.
Hopefully one day own a copy of a newer unreleased camera with this body


----------



## woodman411 (Nov 30, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Looking over the R5 review and comparing it to the R3 review, I found that a very large amount of text and images were copy-pasta. Sure, the focus systems and the points he wants to make are similar, but he really shouldn't be showing R5 data (photos) to prove a point in an R3 review, when the R3 wasn't used for the particular test (e.g. eye and head tracking).
> 
> To me, this is starting to detract from the trustworthiness of the individual reviews.


The purpose of Bryan using some of the R5 autofocus content was to articulate the difference between modern Canon mirrorless to DSLR, and he does preface it by saying "Here is a sample showing that benefit, along with a bit of discussion from the R5 review. Know that the R3 is considerably more advanced – I'll share some of those advancements after this reversion." I have no issues with what he did here, and he does expand more on the differences between the R5 and R3 afterwards.

It is ironic you mention trustworthiness, to me, he is the most trustworthy online reviewer for Canon and Sony. He doesn't clickbait, he doesn't hype ("Canon lied! I'm switching! End of Canon!") or goes with the trendy-but-out-of-context stupidity like dynamic range doom/overheating doom/<insert latest Canon doom here>. His reviews are thorough, measured when possible, contextual, and ultimately the most informative of any reviewer out there. TDP should be considered one of the most valuable review resources available.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 30, 2021)

woodman411 said:


> His reviews are thorough, measured when possible, contextual, and ultimately the most informative of any reviewer out there. TDP should be considered a valuable Canon resource.


Also when being measured, he often hits the nail right on top of the head:

"With each new high-end camera iteration, it becomes more difficult to be happy with the newfound annoyances (additional steps or efforts required to get the same job done) of the older models, and the R3 brings out those inadequacies of the other models."

We have gone through the steps of camera development, where it is really now camera refinement. The advances are not so big. You really can still take great pictures with the xx year old camera you currently own.

But the R3, and other newer cameras....just makes doing so easier.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 30, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Thanks Alan. Same paragraph now says:
> 
> Interesting that the R3 only focuses "slightly faster" than the R5, as I found there was a significant difference between the 5D3 and the 1DX bodies. Of course, if the R5 is already very quick, then it is going to be hard to improve, and the perception of the improvement can be minute.
> 
> ...


R5 and R6 got a lot closer to the 1D series AF speed than the 5D series ever got. So they closed a lot of the gap already. R3 is essentially just as fast as the 1D series, and is at least as fast as the Sony A1. Maybe an R1 will be faster, but right now it seems hard to imagine how things get better from here. I'm sure they will, but this is already uncharted territory. 

Brian


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Nov 30, 2021)

StandardLumen said:


> This is a very useful, thorough review. However, still no one has done what I am most interested to see, which is an image quality comparison between the R3 and R5 where the R3 images are scaled up to R5 size. In this review, it is stated that a better comparison would be to scale the R5 images down to R3 size, and depending on how you work that may be most relevant to you, but for me I really want to know just how much quality I would be losing with the R3 vs the R5 when making a large print of a cropped image.


That's my point, I rarely use the full-frame and will sometimes crop an image to get a vertical out of a horizontal when I see that it's a better shot. Anytime you're cropping in the image resolution is a factor to maintaining a decent output. If it's a subject that you can't reshoot then you need as much flexibility as possible if you can't go back and reshoot the subject.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Nov 30, 2021)

docsmith said:


> Also when being measured, he often hits the nail right on top of the head:
> 
> "With each new high-end camera iteration, it becomes more difficult to be happy with the newfound annoyances (additional steps or efforts required to get the same job done) of the older models, and the R3 brings out those inadequacies of the other models."
> 
> ...


It will be interesting to see the sales comparison of the R3 to the R5 and tell if the resolution is a deciding factor for new camera purchasers or if they are willing to give away resolution to get the new features on the R3?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> It will be interesting to see the sales comparison of the R3 to the R5 and tell if the resolution is a deciding factor for new camera purchasers or if they are willing to give away resolution to get the new features on the R3?


1) the >$2000 price difference is a confound that can’t be ignored, and 2) we won’t ever see those numbers anyway.


----------



## kten (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I believe the idea is a single RAW file with the MSNR applied, i.e the multiple shots combined into a single RAW file with lower noise. There are dedicated astrophotography postprocessing apps that do that sort of thing (not on RAW files, though), but I'm not aware of any standard RAW converters that allow combining RAW images to reduce noise. The concept is similar to long exposure NR, where the camera takes a dark frame after the shot and subtracts it from the primary image before writing the RAW file.
> 
> Note that there are a couple of workarounds to achieve the same ends. The way to get a RAW file is to use Canon's multiple exposure feature and set the exposure control method to Average – that lets you take up to 9 exposures to combine (which would give better NR than the 4 exposures of MSNR). Another is to simply take multiple, successive exposures and combine them in Photoshop (overlay them and adjust the opacity to equally weight them (i.e. opacity = 100/image number, so the bottom image is 100% opacity, the second is 50% opacity, the 3rd is 33%, 4th is 25%, etc.).


When I know I'm going to be doing that for NR reasons I find it much quicker and easier to take multiple underexposed images where total exposure of the group adds up to same as correct exposure and use screen blend mode if that makes sense. Eg. when I've done astro or low light stuff where plan to stack for NR reasons instead of blending say 10 x 1 seconds shots with opacity method you mention I'd take 10 x 1/10th shots and blend with 100% opacity in screen.

Obviously I tend to do it for longer exposures than 1sec but it can be handy for shortish ones handheld with no stabilisation and simply crop a tiny bit after auto aligning layers with PS align layers script under pano and stackign options. Much faster and kills the same kind of random noise that opacity normal blend does with less time for things in scene to move too much (stars, trees etc etc).


----------



## DBounce (Dec 1, 2021)

I’m starting to think that 30 fps is just marketing hype. The video below is actually shot in still mode. The stills are processed in Lightroom and batch exported. These stills were then imported into Resolve as an image sequence. However, when played back on a 30 fps timeline the video looked sped up. That means there were not enough frames to play at normal speed on the 30 fps timeline. Worst still, when played back at the video’s 24 fps frame rate, it still appears slightly sped up.
It looks like the R3 can only achieve about 22 fps, outside of paid influencers hands.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

DBounce said:


> I’m starting to think that 30 fps is just marketing hype. The video below is actually shot in still mode. The stills are processed in Lightroom and batch exported. These stills were then imported into Resolve as an image sequence. However, when played back on a 30 fps timeline the video looked sped up. That means there were not enough frames to play at normal speed on the 30 fps timeline. Worst still, when played back at the video’s 24 fps frame rate, it still appears slightly sped up.
> It looks like the R3 can only achieve about 22 fps, outside of paid influencers hands.


There are caveats on lens choice and camera settings that preclude achieving 30 fps. With no details on those parameters, it’s premature to draw that conclusion.

We know DPR doesn’t, but some reviewers actually RTFM.


----------



## DBounce (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> There are caveats on lens choice and camera settings that preclude achieving 30 fps. With no details on those parameters, it’s premature to draw that conclusion.


All the details are given in the video description. The lens is a manual lens. No AF to slow anything down. Camera was set to shoot Raw only. It wouldn’t be the first time that a manufacturer overstated the performance of a product.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

DBounce said:


> All the details are given in the video description. The lens is a manual lens. No AF to slow anything down. Camera was set to shoot Raw only. It wouldn’t be the first time that a manufacturer overstated the performance of a product.


All the details? Ok, tell me…what was the shutter speed used? Was flicker reduction enabled?

Looks more like someone trying to stir the pot and increase view counts. Gullibility helps with that.

Or just someone who failed to RTFM, as I said before. I don’t shoot video on ILCs, but someone demonstrating use of an anamorphic lens clearly does. My rudimentary knowledge of videography suggests that someone aiming for 30 fps video footage would set the shutter speed to 1/60 s. That’s too slow to achieve 30 fps on the R3.

It wouldn’t be the first time someone jumped to an erroneous conclusion based on flawed information.


----------



## Joules (Dec 1, 2021)

DBounce said:


> All the details are given in the video description. The lens is a manual lens. No AF to slow anything down. Camera was set to shoot Raw only. It wouldn’t be the first time that a manufacturer overstated the performance of a product.


On top of anti flicker setting, which is not in the description, does the video mention the battery level?

In any case, using the subjective speedup of a video to derive the actual FPS is really weird and not a particularly objective. Just take a sequence of images, and divide amount of pictures in the sequence by the difference in timestamps between the first and last image of the sequence.


----------



## kaihp (Dec 1, 2021)

woodman411 said:


> The purpose of Bryan using some of the R5 autofocus content was to articulate the difference between modern Canon mirrorless to DSLR, and he does preface it by saying "Here is a sample showing that benefit, along with a bit of discussion from the R5 review. Know that the R3 is considerably more advanced – I'll share some of those advancements after this reversion." I have no issues with what he did here, and he does expand more on the differences between the R5 and R3 afterwards.



I guess it's different strokes for different folks then. I get it why he does it that way, but I prefer to have a single review page that only review of the particular camera. With his current inter-mixing, you need to be very careful about when he's talking about _this_ camera and when he's talking about another (older) camera. For the focus system, he could have linked to the particular paragraph in the R5 review instead. each review contains a massive amount of information, some of which may not be too relevant for me at the time of reading (or rereading).



woodman411 said:


> It is ironic you mention trustworthiness, to me, he is the most trustworthy online reviewer for Canon and Sony. He doesn't clickbait, he doesn't hype ("Canon lied! I'm switching! End of Canon!") or goes with the trendy-but-out-of-context stupidity like dynamic range doom/overheating doom/<insert latest Canon doom here>. His reviews are thorough, measured when possible, contextual, and ultimately the most informative of any reviewer out there. TDP should be considered one of the most valuable review resources available.


Yes, it's ironic. I agree that TDP should be considered one of the most valuable review sites out there. But that statement, and my statement that "To me, this is starting to detract from the trustworthiness of the individual reviews." isn't necessarily contradictory. You can be at a very high level, and yet decline. Maybe not enough to be a problem right now, but maybe in the future.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 1, 2021)

The choices available right now are fantastic. The cameras get more and more exotic. The lenses too.

So, does this lend credence to the idea some have had about the R-1 being a high megapixel studio camera?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 1, 2021)

kaihp said:


> I'm confused by this paragraph:
> 
> 
> Bryan starts saying the R3 focuses very fast, and then goes on rambling about the R5 vs the venerable 5DsR. Maybe this is a left-over from his R5 review?
> ...


There's a few differences in battery power and AF processing power. But the AF sensor and general hard ware is the same. 
The 1D Series battery packs run at a higher voltage than the 5D & R5 series cameras. This allows the bigger telephoto lenses (I use a 400mm f2.8 myself) to move their large focussing elements a bit quicker. This makes the AF feel snappier and more reactive. The 1D series also gets a dedicated AF processor Digic chip. This doesn't do much except help with predictive algorithms. Put the two camera next to each other and the only time the 1 Series' AF capability is better (ignoring the battery advantage) is where AI focus is enabled and all points engaged. The 1D series tracks smoother and keeps the lock through the 10-15 fps. Where as the 5D series processor only has to track through a much lower frame rate. If you use AI focus with a 9 point zone or a single point AI then there is very little difference between the AF capabilities. 
I've shot Irish Sea Birds like gannets, puffins, razorbills and guillemots in a range of different lighting conditions and situations, in flight & landing and i mostly use a 5D3 with a very high success rate. Easily comparable to the results that my 1D series fellow photographers were getting. 
So yes I would label the 1D series' AF as slightly better in some modes. But this doesn't often translate into better photos. There's not much the 1DX/I/II/III can do AF wise that the old 5D3 can't. It's only obvious limitation is the frame rate and for many it's already enough. Maybe not for the pray and sprayers!


----------



## docsmith (Dec 1, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The choices available right now are fantastic. The cameras get more and more exotic. The lenses too.
> 
> So, does this lend credence to the idea some have had about the R-1 being a high megapixel studio camera?


In my mind, the main issue is if the R3 is a new line or a one-off placeholder as Canon refined its technology. Could be that they did not want to put the "1" series label on a camera until they had Quad pixel AF, or until they could have faster flash sync speeds, etc. If that is the case, the R3 will be out for a couple of years at a lower price point but the R1 will have similar MP but some other enhanced tech. But we will never see an R3 Mk II.

Or, the R3 lineup is the true heir apparent to the 1DX line, we do see an R3 II and the R1 becomes the spec monster many covet. Canon is great at targeting markets, so if they are both a new lineup, each will be focused on their own market.


----------



## Joules (Dec 1, 2021)

docsmith said:


> In my mind, the main issue is if the R3 is a new line or a one-off placeholder as Canon refined its technology. Could be that they did not want to put the "1" series label on a camera until they had Quad pixel AF, or until they could have faster flash sync speeds, etc. If that is the case, the R3 will be out for a couple of years at a lower price point but the R1 will have similar MP but some other enhanced tech. But we will never see an R3 Mk II.
> 
> Or, the R3 lineup is the true heir apparent to the 1DX line, we do see an R3 II and the R1 becomes the spec monster many covet. Canon is great at targeting markets, so if they are both a new lineup, each will be focused on their own market.


If the R3 were a one off release to buy time, I would have expected Canon to make this clearer.

It does not make sense to create the impression that people currently interested in a 1 series body can just wait for a small while for the R1 to come around, when in reality they are supposed to buy an R3 for the time being.

That just lowers sales of the R3 and creates potential for people to look closer at the Z9 once they become tired of waiting.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 1, 2021)

Joules said:


> If the R3 were a one off release to buy time, I would have expected Canon to make this clearer.


....because Canon always clearly states their future plans?

I assume you are already aware, but if not, the EOS-3 was a one-off, at least I am not aware of a MkII.

Also, I do not think if the R3 is a one off in any way detracts from its abilities. Great camera. I am considering getting one myself and do not care if there is an R3 II or if the future successor is labeled an R1.

But, the point of my post, "does this lend credence...to the R1 being a high MP studio camera"...not necessarily.


----------



## Joules (Dec 1, 2021)

docsmith said:


> ....because Canon always clearly states their future plans?


No. Because they want people transitioning to mirrorless to go with Canon. So if they wanted to target the same market as the Z9, A1, 1DX 3, etc, why not just release a camera that belongs to the 1 series in all but the name?

Why use a slow SD card slot, forcing users to chose between speed and redundancy?
Why leave out spot metering linked to AF point?
Why use the R5 12 FPS shutter, when the 1DX III 16 FPS one was an option?

To me, those are hints that Canon tried to reduce the cost of this body by explicitly not designing it as a flagship, nor as a temporary offering.

I just don't see how it makes sense to develop a completely new camera to make it seem like they have a competitor to the Z9, when the R1 is less than year away anyway. The resources spent working on the R3 could have been used to accelerate the R1 to some degree.

I can totally see the R3 being the only one of its kind if the post covid market doesn't work out the way Canon envisioned it. But I don't understand how it makes any sende to buy extra time for the R1, or refine its technology, as you put it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

Joules said:


> To me, those are hints that Canon tried to reduce the cost of this body by explicitly not designing it as a flagship,


Hints? Who needs hints? Canon stated explicitly in an interview that the R3 is not the flagship mirrorless and that a 1-series mirrorless is coming at some point.


----------



## john1970 (Dec 1, 2021)

*How do you set the R3 to remember the last ISO settings?*

I have set different drive modes to the C1, C2, and C3 custom settings and am having issue with the camera resetting to base iso when it goes to sleep. I realize that there maybe nothing I can do to stop this occurrence, but was hoping that others might have insights. 

Please advise and thank you.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 1, 2021)

Joules said:


> No. Because they want people transitioning to mirrorless to go with Canon. So if they wanted to target the same market as the Z9, A1, 1DX 3, etc, why not just release a camera that belongs to the 1 series in all but the name?
> 
> Why use a slow SD card slot, forcing users to chose between speed and redundancy?
> Why leave out spot metering linked to AF point?
> ...


So, first off, let me say, I suspect you are correct and that Canon will both keep the R3 line and introduce an R1. But, I am not completely sold on that idea, Matter of fact I am probably 60/40 on it. Why? That would imply that there is a big enough market to support two "high end" camera body systems with integrated grips, etc. Ever since the 1DX, Canon has not done this. Nikon has not done this, and Sony is close with the A9 and A1. If Canon does keep both the R3 and introduce a R1, the A9/A1 is probably the closest allegory...but I've also wondered if the A9 is going to go away and be replaced by the A1.

So, to answer the questions you pose, I'll play a bit of Devil's advocate, but it isn't hard to see the otherside:
_ why not just release a camera that belongs to the 1 series in all but the name?_
Because the 1DX III was released just the previous year and they wanted to give it a bit more time "as the flagship." Plus there may be tech Canon wanted to further develop before introducing it in an R1.

_Why use a slow SD card slot, forcing users to chose between speed and redundancy?_
Differentiate the R3 to the 1DX III, not just a future R1. Plus CFe was very new when Canon was likely making decisions...perhaps they were concerned about potential CFe card supply and didn't want to leave their cameras stranded. 

_Why leave out spot metering linked to AF point?_
The 1DX III has a completely separate sensor and a separate processor for AF and metering. The R3 has to pull all that information off a single sensor. Could be the processing power/circuitry is not there yet. 


_Why use the R5 12 FPS shutter, when the 1DX III 16 FPS one was an option?_
Canon has been clear that they think of the R3 as an electronic shutter first camera. I really wonder if the R1 will be shutterless. This could also be used as a reason for the R3 being a placeholder. A step to wean people off mechanical shutters. Why 12 FPS? Likely to save costs as it might be the same/similar shutter (or shutter tech) as the R5/R6. And, this is just something I marvel at, but think about the AF issues with the mechanical shutter when you AF on the sensor. You cannot AF while the shutter is closed! The R3 AFs 60 times/sec. How much is 12 fps a function of the actual shutter speed or a function of allowing time to AF with the sensor. The shutter is likely blazing fast. Also, the 1DX III is their current stated flagship, this is still a point in favor of it. 

_But I don't understand how it makes any sende to buy extra time for the R1, or refine its technology, as you put it._
So, basically, if they aren't going to continue with the R3, why not just take the exact same body that is the R3 and announce it as an R1? Part may be to give the 1DX III some space. But in terms of tech, think about your spot metering example, what if that really is a processing power limitation and somewhere in Canon there is a spec sheet that says "no 1 series camera shall exist without spot metering linked to an AF point" but yet, the processing power isn't there yet (think about it, the same circuitry that still gives us some rolling shutter is now also being used to AF/AE). Maybe they want flash sync speeds of 1/250th or something else. But, the flipside works here in my mind....if they had the tech they wanted for an R1 developed, why did they not release it first rather than the R3? Only reason I can think of is they wanted those that favor less MPs to know they'd have a mirrorless successor before introducing a large MP camera....but if the R1 tech is ready.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

docsmith said:


> _ why not just release a camera that belongs to the 1 series in all but the name?_
> Because the 1DX III was released just the previous year and they wanted to give it a bit more time "as the flagship." Plus there may be tech Canon wanted to further develop before introducing it in an R1.


This is exactly what Canon stated. Quote from Go Tokura, Chief Executive of the Image Communication Business Operations at Canon:

"_We still consider the EOS-1D X Mark III to be our flagship professional camera due to its extreme reliability and confidence it delivers in the hands of professionals. However, it is true that the EOS R3 exceeds the EOS-1D X Mark III in some specifications, to the extent which, by the conventional definition, you could consider it a flagship camera. 

While the RF system is a major evolution of the EF system, we believe that in order to bestow an RF camera with the “1” model designation, we must achieve an even greater level of performance, and we continue to work towards reaching those high standards._"



docsmith said:


> _Why use a slow SD card slot, forcing users to chose between speed and redundancy?_
> Differentiate the R3 to the 1DX III, not just a future R1. Plus CFe was very new when Canon was likely making decisions...perhaps they were concerned about potential CFe card supply and didn't want to leave their cameras stranded.


Agree, but also keep in mind that a pair of identical card slots is still among the minority of 1-series bodies. The 1D X has dual CF, the 1D X III has dual CFe, but the 1D X II and the 1D/1Ds bodies had mixed card slots.



docsmith said:


> _Why leave out spot metering linked to AF point?_
> The 1DX III has a completely separate sensor and a separate processor for AF and metering. The R3 has to pull all that information off a single sensor. Could be the processing power/circuitry is not there yet.


If the R3 can run a spot metering calculation from the center of the image sensor, it should also be able to run a spot metering calculation from a same-sized region somewhere else on the image sensor. IMO, this is a pure differentiation play. In the digital world, AF point-linked spot metering has been the province of the 1-series.



docsmith said:


> _Why use the R5 12 FPS shutter, when the 1DX III 16 FPS one was an option?_
> Canon has been clear that they think of the R3 as an electronic shutter first camera. I really wonder if the R1 will be shutterless. This could also be used as a reason for the R3 being a placeholder. A step to wean people off mechanical shutters. Why 12 FPS? Likely to save costs as it might be the same/similar shutter (or shutter tech) as the R5/R6. And, this is just something I marvel at, but think about the AF issues with the mechanical shutter when you AF on the sensor. You cannot AF while the shutter is closed! The R3 AFs 60 times/sec. How much is 12 fps a function of the actual shutter speed or a function of allowing time to AF with the sensor. The shutter is likely blazing fast. Also, the 1DX III is their current stated flagship, this is still a point in favor of it.


Agree with this completely.



docsmith said:


> _But I don't understand how it makes any sende to buy extra time for the R1, or refine its technology, as you put it._
> So, basically, if they aren't going to continue with the R3, why not just take the exact same body that is the R3 and announce it as an R1? Part may be to give the 1DX III some space. But in terms of tech, think about your spot metering example, what if that really is a processing power limitation and somewhere in Canon there is a spec sheet that says "no 1 series camera shall exist without spot metering linked to an AF point" but yet, the processing power isn't there yet (think about it, the same circuitry that still gives us some rolling shutter is now also being used to AF/AE). Maybe they want flash sync speeds of 1/250th or something else. But, the flipside works here in my mind....if they had the tech they wanted for an R1 developed, why did they not release it first rather than the R3? Only reason I can think of is they wanted those that favor less MPs to know they'd have a mirrorless successor before introducing a large MP camera....but if the R1 tech is ready.....


Personally, I think it may be as simple as AF orientation – Canon has multiple patents on cross-type AF for mirrorless (DPAF in rows of orthogonal orientations, QPAF), and one of them is going to show up in the R1. They knew they'd need top-shelf MILC before it would be ready for prime time, so we have the R3.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 3, 2021)

Joules said:


> If the R3 were a one off release to buy time, I would have expected Canon to make this clearer.
> 
> It does not make sense to create the impression that people currently interested in a 1 series body can just wait for a small while for the R1 to come around, when in reality they are supposed to buy an R3 for the time being.
> 
> That just lowers sales of the R3 and creates potential for people to look closer at the Z9 once they become tired of waiting.


What's in a name? Don't people tend to buy what fits? Does anyone really mind that it's called an R3 instead of R1? I mean, they bought for specs, right?


----------



## scottburgess (Dec 3, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Yes, annoyances like having a crappy SD slot wasting valuable storage space... wonder when that will get fixed? I'm not changing to the R system yet, I will wait to see what the R1 and/or R3 Mark II look like.


----------



## TravelerNick (Dec 3, 2021)

Joules said:


> I just don't see how it makes sense to develop a completely new camera to make it seem like they have a competitor to the Z9, when the R1 is less



The Z9 didn't exist when they started the R3 development. Or even the A1. More importantly neither did the new sensor or any of the other new features in the R3.

The R3 looks to have been a fairly safe option for Canon. If they had tried to swing for the fences and wiffed well that's not good in the segment the R1 is targetting.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 3, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> It will be interesting to see the sales comparison of the R3 to the R5 and tell if the resolution is a deciding factor for new camera purchasers or if they are willing to give away resolution to get the new features on the R3?


The context only really matters as to how the final image will be displayed. Most images are now viewed electronically so you could argue every picture is oversampled to fit in an electronic container. If your a heavy cropper then 45MP clearly counts but if your not its debatable.
The decision to buy an R3 will be very different to an R5 or the R6 (Ive a number of wedding photographer friends that bought both the R5 and R6 and the R6 is their primary camera not the R5). The R3 is clearly aimed at professional photographers who are mainly into sports, action and wildlife photography its not really a general purpose camera although it could be used as one. The R5 straddles two camps professionals in a multitude of areas and prosumer amateurs. The R6 also appeals to professionals (mainly it seems wedding photographers either as a main camera or second body) and to amateurs across the spectrum of abilities. Of course price comes into the decision and not just the camera but the lenses too.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 3, 2021)

scottburgess said:


> Yes, annoyances like having a crappy SD slot wasting valuable storage space... wonder when that will get fixed? I'm not changing to the R system yet, I will wait to see what the R1 and/or R3 Mark II look like.


Ive seen as have you thousands of brilliant photographs shot using those crappy SD cards. Ive shot digitally for years and luckily never had an SD failure. I have had failures with CF cards and with high end Sony cards for professional video.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 3, 2021)

At the 2021 Professional Photographer of the Year competition just over 50% of the entries were shot on the 5D MKIV (second place) and the 5D MKIII (first place). Next in Canon line up was the EOS R around 8th and after that the 6D MKII. Obviously that will change in the 2022 competition as entries from both the R5 & R6 appear. 
Nikon was second placed manufacturer with the D850 top and Sony third. 
DSLRs are going to still be represented though not all pros change gear quickly.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 3, 2021)

nd


Joules said:


> ....
> 
> I can totally see the R3 being the only one of its kind if the post covid market doesn't work out the way Canon envisioned it. But I don't understand how it makes any sende to buy extra time for the R1, or refine its technology, as you put it.


Personally, one reason I like Canon and stick with them is that they seem to be more concerned with getting the tech right - and not that concerned with rushing something out to "keep up" with the competition. Sony put a bitter taste in my mouth when I tried their A7 and realized that rushing out a camera that many called a "beta" version, meant you were getting an inferior product. It worked for them, they got a jump on all their competitors by putting out a FF mirrorless years ahead of Canon and Nikon. The A7 II was also a "beta" camera, in my opinion. After being burned twice, I said, "Sony...never again." 

The R3 is clearly aimed at Sports and action professionals who need a large buffer, high FPS and a quick turn-around time. Pros who are already heavily invested in Canon. Pros who want a seamless transition when they pick up an old and then the new camera with similar button placement and menu options. That's who Canon cared about when this camera went into design probably as long as 3 years ago. So, the Z9 is and was irrelevant. Pros are not switching because a competitor has a shiny new product. Pros can wait a year or two or more until they need to replace their old camera. 

To reiterate, it makes sense to buy extra time (or stick to your original schedule, more likely) if your goal is to put out a product that you think is the absolute top of the line. That may not make marketing sense in the short term, but it may pay off in the long run. I think Canon is always looking at the long term future.


----------



## scottburgess (Dec 8, 2021)

jeffa4444 said:


> Ive seen as have you thousands of brilliant photographs shot using those crappy SD cards. Ive shot digitally for years and luckily never had an SD failure. I have had failures with CF cards and with high end Sony cards for professional video.


If you read my post again you'll note that I'm not complaining about the _cards_, but the slow _*slots* _(ie, controllers that Canon puts on the SD slots of their cameras). The SD slot _is_ the "backup" card slot on the R3. Unfortunately it slows the frame rate down and clogs the buffer on that and several other camera models. The storage medium does not affect (nor can it affect) the "brilliance" of the photographs or indeed anything at all about them--it is merely storage that holds a copy of the image. 

Failure rates on cards are reported as fairly steady at 2-3% (when adjusted for storage size) regardless of the housing; the quantity of solid state memory is the primary functional input to the failure equation, not the housing structure (though manufacturing technology also plays a role). Buy quality cards and rotate your cards from time to time and you won't experience many failures. I haven't had an image lost on CF in over a decade.

A major reason I am not migrating to R yet is the SD slot on the R3, otherwise I would be merely waiting until the pipeline fills and the price drops a little. I'm not sure I want to pay for an R1 at $8500 either, so I might wait to see what an R3 Mark II looks like. It's only 5 years or so, and I'm good enough with the bodies I have that I can afford to wait it out for what I need. Heck, gently used 1DXiii's might get really cheap by then, allowing me to wait even longer.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2021)

Another good review by an actual bird photographer with sample images.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Another good review by an actual bird photographer with sample images.


That was a very good plug for the Z9 - it would have what he says he wants.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2021)

AlanF said:


> That was a very good plug for the Z9 - it would have what he says he wants.


And a possible R1, however in the meantime he is keeping his R3 and very much sees a place for it in his 'toolkit'. He is also very open about the pros over the R5 and the cons.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And a possible R1, however in the meantime he is keeping his R3 and very much sees a place for it in his 'toolkit'. He is also very open about the pros over the R5 and the cons.


I'd be happy with either of them - the pros of both so far outweigh their cons.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 13, 2021)

AlanF said:


> That was a very good plug for the Z9 - it would have what he says he wants.


Z 9 is slower than the R3


----------

