# Gordon Laing from CameraLabs gives his first reviews of the new Canon gear, including the EOS R3



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 14, 2021)

> After watching far too much YouTube this AM, I came to the conclusion that Gordon Laing’s first reviews of Canon’s newest gear should give you all you need to know about the EOS R3, RF 16mm f/2.8 STM, and RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM.
> These reviews are the first of what will likely be a few more in the future from Gordon.
> Canon EOS R3 Part 1
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 14, 2021)

Looks like the eye initiated tracking is going to be very useful!

Jack


----------



## miketcool (Sep 14, 2021)

By keeping the weight of this lens so close to the other compact primes, I can successfully swap lenses on my Ronin-S without rebalancing the setup. These are set to compete against DJI as they continue to move into cameras.


----------



## jose.molero (Sep 14, 2021)

> After watching far too much YouTube this AM, I came to the conclusion that Gordon Laing’s first reviews of Canon’s newest gear should give you all you need to know about the EOS R3, RF 16mm f/2.8 STM, and RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM.


you and me both my friend, too many youtube videos for a single morning, I alslo loved Vanessa Joy Videos really really funny an very comprehensive
Vanessa Joy R3 review


----------



## jose.molero (Sep 14, 2021)

miketcool said:


> By keeping the weight of this lens so close to the other compact primes, I can successfully swap lenses on my Ronin-S without rebalancing the setup. These are set to compete against DJI as they continue to move into cameras.


And I guess is also a preparetion to launch the canon gymbal with integrated camera, this is my bet for that mysterious camera that would make mad the fanboys


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 14, 2021)

Larry Chen created nice advert,





and Vladimir


----------



## neurorx (Sep 14, 2021)

jose.molero said:


> you and me both my friend, too many youtube videos for a single morning, I alslo loved Vanessa Joy Videos really really funny an very comprehensive
> Vanessa Joy R3 review


I couldn't really tell how she felt about the eye tracking though her review was creative and funny.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 14, 2021)

I never thought I would say this, but I learned the most from Jared Polin's review. For instance, the focal length now being visible in the viewfinder, and the customizable Q menu are welcome features that I have not seen mentioned by others.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 14, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I never thought I would say this, but I learned the most from Jared Polin's review. For instance, the focal length now being visible in the viewfinder, and the customizable Q menu are welcome features that I have not seen mentioned by others.


Customizable Q menu has been a 1Dx feature for at least the last two generations, glad to hear it is included with the R3. I hope saving settings to a card is also included, nice to have when you send the camera in to CPS for cleaning and they reset everything to default.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 14, 2021)

My understanding that is that settings can be saved to cards and transferred to other R3s.


----------



## dboris (Sep 14, 2021)

Sony A1 : 1.4mpx LCD.
Canon R3 : 4.2mpx LCD.


----------



## Talys (Sep 14, 2021)

The Eye AF sounds amazing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2021)

dboris said:


> Sony A1 : 1.4mpx LCD.
> Canon R3 : 4.2mpx LCD.


Only the resolution of the picture matters. You don’t need to see clearly while you’re taking it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2021)

john1970 said:


> My understanding that is that settings can be saved to cards and transferred to other R3s.


Or to your own. On my 1DX I have groups of C# settings for different used cases, and I keep them on an old 2 GB CF card so I can swap them out as needed.


----------



## miketcool (Sep 14, 2021)

jose.molero said:


> And I guess is also a preparetion to launch the canon gymbal with integrated camera, this is my bet for that mysterious camera that would make mad the fanboys


That would be surprising!


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 14, 2021)

dboris said:


> Sony A1 : 1.4mpx LCD.
> Canon R3 : 4.2mpx LCD.


Sure, but one could just as easily say:
Sony A1: 9.44M dot EVF
Canon R3: 5.76 dot EVF

or:
Sony A1: .9x magnification EVF
Canon R3: 0.76x magnification EVF

or even:
Sony A1: 240 FPS EVF
Canon R3: 120 FPS EVF

Personally, I use the EVF about 10x as much as the LCD. If given a choice, I would have preferred to see an improvement in the EVF over an improvement in the LCD as compared with my R5. I do thing the EVF on the R5 is already quite good, though extra magnification and a less pixelated look would have been nice. 

Unless Sony addressed the weird lack of touch screen functionality on their rear LCD, I would think that that would be a bigger annoyance than the 1.4mpx display. 

We all take photos a little differently. Personally I don't think the LCD is a big differentiator here.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 14, 2021)

IMO Gordon always does a first-class review and sticks to the facts.


----------



## entoman (Sep 14, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Sure, but one could just as easily say:
> Sony A1: 9.44M dot EVF
> Canon R3: 5.76 dot EVF
> 
> ...


Yes, the Sony wins on most of the EVF specs - apart from the most important one, i.e. usability. The eye-controlled AF point selection on the R3 looks to be a huge game changer and certainly one of the major appeals of the camera. I especially like the fact that the "orange dot" that marks what you are looking at, can be turned off, leaving a clutter free viewfinder that promises to offer the greatest usability of anything yet seen.

But I agree that a higher resolution EVF would have been nicer, especially considering the price of the camera. I'm not sure what is the point of having a high res LCD, as the eyes will be a few inches away from it and unable to detect the difference. I suppose it could have some value when reviewing at high magnification, but personally I do my chimping through the EVF, not on the LCD.


----------



## entoman (Sep 14, 2021)

john1970 said:


> IMO Gordon always does a first-class review and sticks to the facts.


Yes, Gordon's reviews are always very thorough and well articulated. But actually I discover more from Jared Polin and from Chris & Jordan, who come closer to providing a pseudo-hands on experience. I always make a point of watching all 3 reviews.

I also try to find reviews by appropriate specialists e.g. BIF and sports photographers, because they can reveal particular advantages/disadvantages, and approaches to technique that are relevant to particular cameras.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 14, 2021)

john1970 said:


> IMO Gordon always does a first-class review and sticks to the facts.


If you want to just "stick to the facts" then you can go read the specification sheet on Canon's own website. That's what "sticking to the facts" is. The whole point of a review is someone spends some significant time with a product and then tells you about what their particular experience with it was like, which you can then compare against your own requirements and get a better understanding of whether the product in question is likely to suit you or not.

Gordon doesn't spend much time with the equipment, operates under embargo (mutual agreements with a manufacturer about when, where, and what he can say, in exchange for early access to the product) and 90% of what he says in any given video is just rephrasing the manufacturer's marketing copy. Most of the time he's also not using production units and draws conclusions without so much as glancing at a consumer-facing result. (For example, talking about image quality before raw processing software has been updated to actually support the camera or lens.)

A "first-class review" of a camera or lens isn't—ever—something that comes out in the first few days after announcement or release. The reviewer needs to have enough time with it to test it in a variety of scenarios, software needs to receive updates to actually handle the files or lens profiles, and they need to explain their experience beyond just rewording the spec sheet and PR-penned taglines. The same goes for any other type of product you can name. "Sticking to the facts", regurgitating specifications, is not a review. A good reviewer is not one who tells you what you've already decided you want to hear or takes 20 minutes to ponderously repeat what you could read for yourself in 5; a good reviewer is someone who tells you _their thorough experience_, regardless of if that lines up with your expectations or the manufacturer's claims or not.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 14, 2021)

entoman said:


> Yes, Gordon's reviews are always very thorough and well articulated. But actually I discover more from Jared Polin and from Chris & Jordan, who come closer to providing a pseudo-hands on experience. I always make a point of watching all 3 reviews.
> 
> I also try to find reviews by appropriate specialists e.g. BIF and sports photographers, because they can reveal particular advantages/disadvantages, and approaches to technique that are relevant to particular cameras.


Jared's review of the R3 was particularly informative this time around, and, importantly, he tested with the new RF 400mm and 600mm super telephotos. Since I am really interested in seeing the real-world AF acquisition and speed on the R3 with these new lenses Dual Power AF lenses, I will be tuning in to his more detailed review when it's available. It will be really interesting to see if the R3 offers better BIF performance. 
I'm also really looking forward to hearing about the dynamic range and AF performance in busy/dark environments for wildlife, and for that I'll probably have to tune into a different channel.


----------



## deleteme (Sep 14, 2021)

The eye AF seems OK until I think about watching the edges of my frame.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Sep 14, 2021)

Oooo... I would love to see a firmware update for the R5 where they drop the 30 minute limit on videos now...


----------



## rbielefeld (Sep 15, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I never thought I would say this, but I learned the most from Jared Polin's review. For instance, the focal length now being visible in the viewfinder, and the customizable Q menu are welcome features that I have not seen mentioned by others.


I too thought Fro did a great job. If you have not watched his R3 vid, it is worth the time IMO.


----------



## padam (Sep 15, 2021)

tbgtomcom said:


> Oooo... I would love to see a firmware update for the R5 where they drop the 30 minute limit on videos now...


And then R6 owners would shout out the same thing, and so on.
Let's be real, an R5 C version will have this with active cooling to differentiate itself from the R5.
Crop mode 5.1K 60p RAW internal recording is also possible on the R5, but they just don't enable it, only with the (expensive) Ninja V+ recorder.


----------



## rbielefeld (Sep 15, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Jared's review of the R3 was particularly informative this time around, and, importantly, he tested with the new RF 400mm and 600mm super telephotos. Since I am really interested in seeing the real-world AF acquisition and speed on the R3 with these new lenses Dual Power AF lenses, I will be tuning in to his more detailed review when it's available. It will be really interesting to see if the R3 offers better BIF performance.
> I'm also really looking forward to hearing about the dynamic range and AF performance in busy/dark environments for wildlife, and for that I'll probably have to tune into a different channel.


Just like everyone else, I won't be getting my R3 until the first batch of bodies is released given I am not a Social Media influencer of any "influence" at all. But, I am a professional bird photographer who has been shooting for almost 30 years and I have a YT channel at Whistling Wings Photography. I have done quite a few videos on the R5 and I will be doing bird photography centric reviews and set up videos of/for the R3 once I have had time to work with it a bit. So, if interested, I would be honored if you would visit my channel. Who knows, I might even provide some useful information; which does happen from time to time.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 15, 2021)

Gordon's part 2 review is good too, including some BiF footage, and comparisons for stills and video with the R5 equivalents. It's not a camera for me, but ... wow!


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 15, 2021)

rbielefeld said:


> Just like everyone else, I won't be getting my R3 until the first batch of bodies is released given I am not a Social Media influencer of any "influence" at all. But, I am a professional bird photographer who has been shooting for almost 30 years and I have a YT channel at Whistling Wings Photography. I have done quite a few videos on the R5 and I will be doing bird photography centric reviews and set up videos of/for the R3 once I have had time to work with it a bit. So, if interested, I would be honored if you would visit my channel. Who knows, I might even provide some useful information; which does happen from time to time.


Thanks for the invite! I have subscribed to your channel, and I have actually watched several of your videos recently!

Here are some questions that I would be interested in seeing covered in your review. Like many in the market for the R3, I am an current R5 owner:

- When comparing the R5 and R3, how noticeable are the AF improvements, including AF on fast birds, AF in really low light, and AF for birds in bushes with tricky backgrounds (foliage) that the R5 gets stuck on sometimes? Did the eye tracking help with situations where the R5 is not as good as acquiring initial focus? 
- Is the R3 AF any "stickier" than the R5?
- How much better is the low light performance IQ compared to the R5? 
- Do you miss the extra MP of he R5 when shooting with the R3, or does improved performance make up for it?
- Is the performance of the new 400mm F2.8 and 600mm F4 a lot better on the R3 than the R5 because of the extra battery voltage for driving the AF motors? How does the system perform with teleconverters?


----------



## Diltiazem (Sep 15, 2021)

CanonAsia is claiming that R3 has "higher resolution performance" compared to 5DIV. Hard to believe. It is around 6 minutes mark.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 15, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> - When comparing the R5 and R3, how noticeable are the AF improvements, including AF on fast birds, AF in really low light, and AF for birds in bushes with tricky backgrounds (foliage) that the R5 gets stuck on sometimes? Did the eye tracking help with situations where the R5 is not as good as acquiring initial focus?
> - Is the R3 AF any "stickier" than the R5?
> - How much better is the low light performance IQ compared to the R5?
> - Do you miss the extra MP of he R5 when shooting with the R3, or does improved performance make up for it?
> - Is the performance of the new 400mm F2.8 and 600mm F4 a lot better on the R3 than the R5 because of the extra battery voltage for driving the AF motors? How does the system perform with teleconverters?


Gordon's Part 2 video spends a lot of time on the R3 AF for video (including eye-tracking) - and he says a couple of times it's a noticeable improvement over the R5.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2021)

Diltiazem said:


> CanonAsia is claiming that R3 has "higher resolution performance" compared to 5DIV. Hard to believe. It is around 6 minutes mark.


Depends on the strength of the AA filter.


----------



## Skux (Sep 15, 2021)

The eye controlled AF looks really impressive. It's not just eye AF but combines it with the camera AF tech to give seamless performance. This is going to be a game changer for sports shooters.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 15, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Customizable Q menu has been a 1Dx feature for at least the last two generations, glad to hear it is included with the R3. I hope saving settings to a card is also included, nice to have when you send the camera in to CPS for cleaning and they reset everything to default.


Custom Q menu was present on 5D series as well and not sure why it was dropped from previous R cameras.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 15, 2021)

entoman said:


> Yes, Gordon's reviews are always very thorough and well articulated. But actually I discover more from Jared Polin and from Chris & Jordan, who come closer to providing a pseudo-hands on experience. I always make a point of watching all 3 reviews.
> 
> I also try to find reviews by appropriate specialists e.g. BIF and sports photographers, because they can reveal particular advantages/disadvantages, and approaches to technique that are relevant to particular cameras.


All very good points as well!


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 15, 2021)

entoman said:


> Yes, the Sony wins on most of the EVF specs - apart from the most important one, i.e. usability. The eye-controlled AF point selection on the R3 looks to be a huge game changer and certainly one of the major appeals of the camera. I especially like the fact that the "orange dot" that marks what you are looking at, can be turned off, leaving a clutter free viewfinder that promises to offer the greatest usability of anything yet seen.
> 
> But I agree that a higher resolution EVF would have been nicer, especially considering the price of the camera. I'm not sure what is the point of having a high res LCD, as the eyes will be a few inches away from it and unable to detect the difference. I suppose it could have some value when reviewing at high magnification, but personally I do my chimping through the EVF, not on the LCD.


high res LCD helps with video and critical focus on such a small screen. brightness is another factor that helps a lot when doing video.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 15, 2021)

miketcool said:


> By keeping the weight of this lens so close to the other compact primes, I can successfully swap lenses on my Ronin-S without rebalancing the setup. These are set to compete against DJI as they continue to move into cameras.


EXACTLY what I ordered the lens for. It's great to have a compact ultra wide, but this is my dedicated gimbal lens moving forward. Having to swap lenses is an absolute PAIN.


----------



## John Wilde (Sep 15, 2021)

It appears that Gordon Laing is the best camera reviewer on YouTube - very detailed, very informative.
​


----------



## dirtyvu (Sep 15, 2021)

jose.molero said:


> you and me both my friend, too many youtube videos for a single morning, I alslo loved Vanessa Joy Videos really really funny an very comprehensive
> Vanessa Joy R3 review


Her review was the only review that mentioned the r3 lost the touch/drag feature of the r5. Thst feature is amazing on the r5 and I would never go back to a joystick.


----------



## dirtyvu (Sep 15, 2021)

Skux said:


> The eye controlled AF looks really impressive. It's not just eye AF but combines it with the camera AF tech to give seamless performance. This is going to be a game changer for sports shooters.


The amazing thing is the eye af kept up with Jared polin's nystagmus.


----------



## Tielman de Villiers (Sep 15, 2021)

The one significant difference between R5 and 1DX mark iii is the use of focus point metering - did anything seen an indication that the R3 capable of focus point metering?


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Depends on the strength of the AA filter.


Exactly! A 20MP 1DxIII showed much more detail than my 26MP RP when shooting side by side on a tripod. For things like macro I would be inclined to believe Canons claim.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 15, 2021)

Talking about video presentations, I personally don't like lengthy vids telling you the specs and interfaces, I can read that by myself. I am much more interested in those videos showing the performance of a new camera in real life - given they are made by photographers/videographers that have a reputation to be quite independent. But finally you have to find out by yourself anyway whether a new gear serves you better than the old one or not - somethimes by the hard way, when the camera or an AF drive dies while you are far away from any spot where you can get a repair or replacement.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 15, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Talking about video presentations, I personally don't like lengthy vids telling you the specs and interfaces, I can read that by myself. I am much more interested in those videos showing the performance of a new camera in real life - given they are made by photographers/videographers that have a reputation to be quite independent. But finally you have to find out by yourself anyway whether a new gear serves you better than the old one or not - somethimes by the hard way, when the camera or an AF drive dies while you are far away from any spot where you can get a repair or replacement.


Gordon's part 2 review is much more along those lines - to be fair, he prefaces the part 1 by saying it's mainly about specs.


----------



## Cyborx (Sep 15, 2021)

5999 DOLLAR = 5000 EURO
Why is Europe beeing fooled?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 15, 2021)

I'm most curious about whether the R3 can perform AF (not talking car or animal ID) any better than the R5 given that it is still dual pixel? I love the animal eye AF of my R5 but I'm not thrilled with the situations where the R5 can't AF as well as my 1DX2 did and I just wonder how folks expecting 1 level performance will be willing to accept the step backward on various occasions.

Jack


----------



## Cyborx (Sep 15, 2021)

Canon used a 24 mpix sensor that Sony used 3 (!!) years ago in their A9.
Ehhhh….


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 15, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> 5999 DOLLAR = 5000 EURO
> Why is Europe beeing fooled?


Tax


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 15, 2021)

I didn’t think much of this review. Jared Polins (who typically irritates me) had a much better review in which I learnt a lot about the eye focus etc. More complex from a user perspective that I thought but maybe it’s intuitive after a while.


----------



## Martin K (Sep 15, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> 5999 DOLLAR = 5000 EURO
> Why is Europe beeing fooled?


It's not. The European price includes tax. Seems fair to me.


----------



## tron (Sep 15, 2021)

Since he could not take photos his lens reviews are useless to me. I do not want to see the lens handled, I want to know its IQ, distortion, vignetting, coma and flare. Not criticizing Gordon here but the stupid comment: " all you need to know".


----------



## Joules (Sep 15, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Canon used a 24 mpix sensor that Sony used 3 (!!) years ago in their A9.
> Ehhhh….


Having the same resolution isn't the same as being the same sensor. Sony's a1 doesn't use the Canon 5Dsr sensor, just because they have the same megapixels count.

This is a Canon designed and manufactured sensor, nothing to do with Sony. If you really think differently: The A9 doesn't have Dual Pixel AF, the R3 has. Totally different architecture.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2021)

Tielman de Villiers said:


> The one significant difference between R5 and 1DX mark iii is the use of focus point metering - did anything seen an indication that the R3 capable of focus point metering?


The R3 specs specifically state that AF point-linked spot metering is *not* provided. Apparently, Canon wanted to make it very clear that this is not a 1-series camera.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 15, 2021)

Joules said:


> Having the same resolution isn't the same as being the same sensor. Sony's a1 doesn't use the Canon 5Dsr sensor, just because they have the same megapixels count.
> 
> This is a Canon designed and manufactured sensor, nothing to do with Sony. If you really think differently: The A9 doesn't have Dual Pixel AF, the R3 has. Totally different architecture.


Moreover, according to Canon Singapore's Launch event the R3 24.1 MP sensor out resolves the Canon 5D Mk4 30.4 MP sensor. I am guessing that this is due to improvements in the low-pass filters. Frankly, I am thrilled to have a camera whose sensor has high ISO performance and the resolution of the Canon 5D Mk4 sensor. I am also very glad to see that the R3 keeps 14 bit depth files at 30 fps.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The R3 specs specifically state that AF point-linked spot metering is *not* provided. Apparently, Canon wanted to make it very clear that this is not a 1-series camera.


I saw that as well. Would have like to have seen it linked, but for me that is a minor issue especially with mirrorless technology. You are correct that Canon seems to be reserving that feature for one series camera even though in the film days the EOS 3 had spot metering linked to the AF point.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Sep 15, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> 5999 DOLLAR = 5000 EURO
> Why is Europe beeing fooled?


5000 plus 20% from VAT (Value Added Tax) gives 6000. But we may consider we are fooled in a way, indeed  ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Canon used a 24 mpix sensor that Sony used 3 (!!) years ago in their A9.
> Ehhhh….


Sony’s a7S III used a 12 MP sensor like Canon used 16 years ago in their original 5D.

Did you have an actual point, or only the type found on top of a dunce cap?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> 5999 DOLLAR = 5000 EURO
> Why is Europe beeing fooled?


Europe is not being fooled, but you are succeeding in making yourself look ever more foolish. Good job!


----------



## Emyr Evans (Sep 15, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Canon used a 24 mpix sensor that Sony used 3 (!!) years ago in their A9.
> Ehhhh….


And Sony used a 12MP sensor in their A7S iii that Canon used in their 5D 14 years ago.


----------



## dboris (Sep 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Only the resolution of the picture matters. You don’t need to see clearly while you’re taking it.


Unless you shoot videos.

I pointed out the LCD resolutions as nearly no reviewer mentionned it.
I want the R3 for videos, I care more about the LCD than the EVF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2021)

dboris said:


> Unless you shoot videos.
> 
> I pointed out the LCD resolutions as nearly no reviewer mentionned it.
> I want the R3 for videos, I care more about the LCD than the EVF.


I don’t.  At least, not with an ILC.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 15, 2021)

Jethro said:


> Gordon's part 2 review is much more along those lines - to be fair, he prefaces the part 1 by saying it's mainly about specs.


I know, part 2 comes closer to my personal preferences - but that was not meant direct criticism of Gordon Laing's part 1. Other people may like that, so it is okay. It isn't just my cup of tea.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 15, 2021)

Btw Kai Wong issued another video about hot Canon gear recently :






To be serious: this shows again that the Canon isn't a conservative camera maker, as many say today. In their history they always came up with radically new designs and ideas, some of which worked well, others look a bit funny today.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The R3 specs specifically state that AF point-linked spot metering is *not* provided. Apparently, Canon wanted to make it very clear that this is not a 1-series camera.


That's one of the few things which always annoy me about Canon, Nikon and Sony offer this very useful feat also in their prosumer level cameras since many years. If you prefer a smaller camera body in Canon's eco system, you are always forced to manual exposure comp with off-center af points. This can be really annoying if you shoot wildlife action in difficult light settings.


----------



## dboris (Sep 15, 2021)

In germany I found some shops that sells it 6000€ taxes in.
That's only 800€ more than what I would pay if I were to avoid paying any taxes.
I'm impressed.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 15, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I saw that as well. Would have like to have seen it linked, but for me that is a minor issue especially with mirrorless technology. You are correct that Canon seems to be reserving that feature for one series camera even though in the film days the EOS 3 had spot metering linked to the AF point.


That's true, the EOS 3's metering system makes it technically the best film camera I personally ever used (and still use), in particular it is the perfect camera for slide film (which needs accurate metering).


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 15, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> The eye AF seems OK until I think about watching the edges of my frame.


exactly what came to my mind. For stills it's no problem, if you frame first, look then at the object you want in focus and then push the button (that's how you did it with the EOS 3 or 5, e.g.). With video, you need to frame w/o moving your eye away from that object, which could be sometimes a bit difficult... at least, you have to train this if you use eye AF, I guess.


----------



## rbielefeld (Sep 15, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Thanks for the invite! I have subscribed to your channel, and I have actually watched several of your videos recently!
> 
> Here are some questions that I would be interested in seeing covered in your review. Like many in the market for the R3, I am an current R5 owner:
> 
> ...


Hey, thanks so much for subscribing and watching. This is a great list and I will add these items to the list I have started. Cheers.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 15, 2021)

Does the R3 have Eye AF inside the Zone AF areas?

I got a tip to use Zone AF for BIF with the R5, and it seem to work very well, but never really got lock on the eyes. Then after checking the menu I see that Eye AF is disabled in Zone AF, why?


----------



## Tielman de Villiers (Sep 15, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I saw that as well. Would have like to have seen it linked, but for me that is a minor issue especially with mirrorless technology. You are correct that Canon seems to be reserving that feature for one series camera even though in the film days the EOS 3 had spot metering linked to the AF point.


dam - there goes half the excuses ...


----------



## entoman (Sep 15, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> If you want to just "stick to the facts" then you can go read the specification sheet on Canon's own website. That's what "sticking to the facts" is. The whole point of a review is someone spends some significant time with a product and then tells you about what their particular experience with it was like, which you can then compare against your own requirements and get a better understanding of whether the product in question is likely to suit you or not.
> 
> Gordon doesn't spend much time with the equipment, operates under embargo (mutual agreements with a manufacturer about when, where, and what he can say, in exchange for early access to the product) and 90% of what he says in any given video is just rephrasing the manufacturer's marketing copy. Most of the time he's also not using production units and draws conclusions without so much as glancing at a consumer-facing result. (For example, talking about image quality before raw processing software has been updated to actually support the camera or lens.)
> 
> A "first-class review" of a camera or lens isn't—ever—something that comes out in the first few days after announcement or release. The reviewer needs to have enough time with it to test it in a variety of scenarios, software needs to receive updates to actually handle the files or lens profiles, and they need to explain their experience beyond just rewording the spec sheet and PR-penned taglines. The same goes for any other type of product you can name. "Sticking to the facts", regurgitating specifications, is not a review. A good reviewer is not one who tells you what you've already decided you want to hear or takes 20 minutes to ponderously repeat what you could read for yourself in 5; a good reviewer is someone who tells you _their thorough experience_, regardless of if that lines up with your expectations or the manufacturer's claims or not.


Yes, it's very important is to hear the *opinions* and *experiences* of working photographers who have used the gear extensively for their own specialist subjects, so prospective purchasers can relate to how suitable the gear might be for them, and learn about operational quirks.

But it's clearly impossible for *any* reviewer who has only had a few hours with a camera to provide much more than a run down of specifications and a visual guide to the controls and basic operation.

At *this* stage, when the product has just been announced, what people want is exactly what Gordon provides - a calm, sane and pretty thorough tour of the camera. I find his approach hugely refreshing when compared to 95% of the influencers and narcissists who communicate virtually nothing and are only interested in attracting hordes of sheep-like "followers". So I feel you are being a bit hard on Gordon.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 15, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> I'm most curious about whether the R3 can perform AF (not talking car or animal ID) any better than the R5 given that it is still dual pixel? I love the animal eye AF of my R5 but I'm not thrilled with the situations where the R5 can't AF as well as my 1DX2 did and I just wonder how folks expecting 1 level performance will be willing to accept the step backward on various occasions.
> 
> Jack


I think this may be the first time I've heard anyone say that the R5/6 focus system is worse than the 1DXIII, let alone 1DXII. I did read one comment that said for swimming, the R5s machine learning wasn't quite as good as the 1DXIII (sometimes choosing the water and not the face). But that was it. Curious to know what other users think. 



justaCanonuser said:


> exactly what came to my mind. For stills it's no problem, if you frame first, look then at the object you want in focus and then push the button (that's how you did it with the EOS 3 or 5, e.g.). With video, you need to frame w/o moving your eye away from that object, which could be sometimes a bit difficult... at least, you have to train this if you use eye AF, I guess.


The tracked subject can be 'locked' on by holding the shutter button at the half-press. So you can line it up, half press, then recompose and shoot, without changing the AF point. This allows you to look and anticipate, without constantly changing the focus point. I watched a lot of videos yetsterday, but I'm pretty sure the DPreview one was what explained this. You can feel free to double check my recollection. 

-Brian


----------



## unfocused (Sep 15, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> I think this may be the first time I've heard anyone say that the R5/6 focus system is worse than the 1DXIII, let alone 1DXII. I did read one comment that said for swimming, the R5s machine learning wasn't quite as good as the 1DXIII (sometimes choosing the water and not the face). But that was it. Curious to know what other users think.



He said, in some situations, and my experience mirrors that. Others of a more technical mind can explain it better than I can, but there are situations when the R5 seems to go wildly out of focus and is unable to locate a subject. 

From what I have read, it has something to do with how the R5 acquires the initial focusing point vs. how a DSLR selects the initial area to focus. I've experienced it primarily with small birds in trees. With a DSLR, I see the bird, initiate autofocus and the camera gets me in the right vicinity, allowing me to quickly refine the focus by zeroing in on the bird. With an R5 I have had a number of experiences where I spot a bird, begin the autofocus and the camera selects a focus point that is far to the back or front of the bird and I have completely lost the bird, which flies off before I can find it again.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 15, 2021)

unfocused said:


> He said, in some situations, and my experience mirrors that. Others of a more technical mind can explain it better than I can, but there are situations when the R5 seems to go wildly out of focus and is unable to locate a subject.
> 
> From what I have read, it has something to do with how the R5 acquires the initial focusing point vs. how a DSLR selects the initial area to focus. I've experienced it primarily with small birds in trees. With a DSLR, I see the bird, initiate autofocus and the camera gets me in the right vicinity, allowing me to quickly refine the focus by zeroing in on the bird. With an R5 I have had a number of experiences where I spot a bird, begin the autofocus and the camera selects a focus point that is far to the back or front of the bird and I have completely lost the bird, which flies off before I can find it again.


I keep a visual record of body/paint repairs I do on my restorations. I had wet sanded and cut through the topcoat to the primer and as you can imagine there was the topcoat (black) with a finely feather edged grey primer within it. Because of the shape , I guess, the R5 refused to focus until I went to portrait orientation. I never had any such issues with the 1DX2. Of course, I also have birds in branches AF issues on occasion but I am not griping, just being forthright about the small step backward, occasionally. I'm thrilled with the R5.

Jack


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 15, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> To be serious: this shows again that the Canon isn't a conservative camera maker, as many say today. In their history they always came up with radically new designs and ideas, some of which worked well, others look a bit funny today.


Only when they've had competition forcing them to, though. When Canon put out their first R and FL cameras (and the Canonet fixed lens rangefinders) they were a big deal because they were undercutting everyone else by a huge margin, which as a company then-new to making camera bodies, they needed to be. By the time they progressed to the FD branding they were no longer the new kids on the block and Canon spiked their prices up despite many of the first FD bodies and lenses simply being FL products renamed. When Canon got auto exposure into a mass-produced consumer body they did so because by that point Nikon and Olympus had both caught up producing cheaper bodies and wider varieties of lenses to match Canon. When Canon started getting autofocus into the mass market they did so because Nikon, Pentax and Olympus had caught up to put autoexposure in every camera. When Canon made the first Rebel digital cameras they did it as cheaply and as quickly as possible, as word had gotten out Nikon had a design for a sub-$1000 digital camera and Canon simply didn't want to be beaten to market; the cameras themselves sucked, but Canon were at least driven.

Now jump forward to the last few years of DSLRs and all the drive totally went aweay, much like the start of the FD branding. Canon absolutely did become "conservative", though I feel a better term would be "complacent". Canon coasted for a long time on the fact they had the largest distribution, thus the largest market share by default, and from about 2010 onward every new product Canon put out was very incremental in updates over the previous versions and it became an open secret that they were intentionally making the lower- and mid-range cameras less capable than was possible so they would have less pressure to push the high-end gear further.

We're seeing innovation and effort from Canon again now only because there's competition once again. They've finally acknowledged Sony as a competitor, so as much as they've dragged their feet about it, Canon and Nikon have both reluctantly moved to mirrorless and are having to try harder. But just because competition has forced their hand does not mean they are in any way leading the charge. Canon has spent the last decade+ trying to coast as lazily as possible, and that should not be forgotten just because they've now revived some of their 1960s rangefinder designs in digital form, or because someone on YouTube picked up a previous oddity. RF is good so far, but it wouldn't exist at all if Canon had had their way. If Sony hadn't pushed mirrorless so hard, we'd still only be seeing EF products from Canon. Canon are, on their own, lazy and greedy; they only try when someone else forces them to.



entoman said:


> But it's clearly impossible for *any* reviewer who has only had a few hours with a camera to provide much more than a run down of specifications and a visual guide to the controls and basic operation.


Which is why it's meaningless and not a "review". A "review" requires experience; reading the spec sheet out loud is not a "review".



entoman said:


> At *this* stage, when the product has just been announced, what people want is exactly what Gordon provides - a calm, sane and pretty thorough tour of the camera.


If someone wants that they can get it in a quarter of the time by going to the manufacturer's own website. Again, it's not a "review". _At most_ it's a walkthrough, and even that is being generous considering he continues to roll these videos out before it's physically possible for him to have actually inspected any of the results in any meaningful way and most of his dialogue is just repeating Canon's own PR.

Saying "there's nothing to do so it's okay he's doing nothing but presenting it like something" isn't the justification you think it is.
And yes, this does go for every other outlet and channel that rushes to dump out similarly vapid "reviews", too. Gordon certainly isn't the only offender and it should not be taken as a criticism only of himself. The majority of the media industry around new product releases is terrible in this fashion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 15, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> I keep a visual record of body/paint repairs I do on my restorations. I had wet sanded and cut through the topcoat to the primer and as you can imagine there was the topcoat (black) with a finely feather edged grey primer within it. Because of the shape , I guess, the R5 refused to focus until I went to portrait orientation. I never had any such issues with the 1DX2. Of course, I also have birds in branches AF issues on occasion but I am not griping, just being forthright about the small step backward, occasionally. I'm thrilled with the R5.
> 
> Jack


That’s the difference between having an autofocus system sensitive to only one orientation, versus sensitivity to multiple orientations such as that provided by cross type sensors.


----------



## rbielefeld (Sep 15, 2021)

unfocused said:


> He said, in some situations, and my experience mirrors that. Others of a more technical mind can explain it better than I can, but there are situations when the R5 seems to go wildly out of focus and is unable to locate a subject.
> 
> From what I have read, it has something to do with how the R5 acquires the initial focusing point vs. how a DSLR selects the initial area to focus. I've experienced it primarily with small birds in trees. With a DSLR, I see the bird, initiate autofocus and the camera gets me in the right vicinity, allowing me to quickly refine the focus by zeroing in on the bird. With an R5 I have had a number of experiences where I spot a bird, begin the autofocus and the camera selects a focus point that is far to the back or front of the bird and I have completely lost the bird, which flies off before I can find it again.


Given I do not know what your AF initiation "ritual" includes I can only state what I do in the described type situation that has almost eliminated wildly missed focus. If I have a bird in a bush or tree with a lot of competing branches and stuff I initiate AF with Spot AF to get either the bird or a branch near the bird in focus. I never initiate AF with say eye-detect or any zone type AF method. If my initial attempt at AF lock on the subject missed a bit and hit a near branch, I refine to the bird from there, again using Spot. Once I have the bird in focus using Spot, I switch to eye-detect. If eye-detect does not get the bird, head of the bird, or eye of the bird, I go immediately back to Spot and it is then up to me to keep that Spot on the bird. I use back button AF and I have the 3 back buttons all set to initiate a different AF method. So, I can switch from Spot to eye-detect back to Spot as quickly as my thumb can switch buttons. 

Again, you may already employ this type of procedure and still be having issues with wildly missed AF, but in case you are not, I decided to reply. Feel free to ignore any or all of this. Cheers.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 15, 2021)

rbielefeld said:


> Given I do not know what your AF initiation "ritual" includes I can only state what I do in the described type situation that has almost eliminated wildly missed focus. If I have a bird in a bush or tree with a lot of competing branches and stuff I initiate AF with Spot AF to get either the bird or a branch near the bird in focus. I never initiate AF with say eye-detect or any zone type AF method. If my initial attempt at AF lock on the subject missed a bit and hit a near branch, I refine to the bird from there, again using Spot. Once I have the bird in focus using Spot, I switch to eye-detect. If eye-detect does not get the bird, head of the bird, or eye of the bird, I go immediately back to Spot and it is then up to me to keep that Spot on the bird. I use back button AF and I have the 3 back buttons all set to initiate a different AF method. So, I can switch from Spot to eye-detect back to Spot as quickly as my thumb can switch buttons.
> 
> Again, you may already employ this type of procedure and still be having issues with wildly missed AF, but in case you are not, I decided to reply. Feel free to ignore any or all of this. Cheers.


Actually, I really appreciate your suggestion. 

I think one of the challenges I've had is that with DSLRs, (And understand that I mainly shoot sports and shoot birds for recreation) I have usually used one of two expanded autofocus selections as a starting point. It has worked well with DSLRs and sports because you have a better chance of grabbing focus on the subject while spot is just too small to catch many players as they move around the court or field (at least that's my experience). 

With the R5 I have the set the * button to eye-detect, which works very well once I acquire initial focus using back button autofocus with the autofocus button. But it's that initial focus that I find challenging. I will try using spot instead of an expanded point. That sounds like a great idea. Thank you.

Edit: I just re-read your post. You mention using a third button. Which one are you referring to (The autofocus point selection button?) and if you re-map that button, how do you select your autofocus points if you want to switch to a zone or expanded point? Or, are do you mean pressing the multi-controller?


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 15, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> I think this may be the first time I've heard anyone say that the R5/6 focus system is worse than the 1DXIII, let alone 1DXII. I did read one comment that said for swimming, the R5s machine learning wasn't quite as good as the 1DXIII (sometimes choosing the water and not the face). But that was it. Curious to know what other users think.


It lines up with what I've experienced with the 1D X III, R5 and R6.
The very nature of how mirrorless focuses vs SLRs means that, until there is a significant breakthrough which likely won't be for a few generations, the autofocus of the very best SLRs will remain better for tracking subjects in complicated 3D situations with a lot of depth in the frame, assuming the body and lenses are calibrated together correctly, and the lens has an aperture big enough to take advantage of the SLR's many dual-cross-type focus points. The other end of this is that mirrorless is of course much more accurate when focusing on 2D scenes and don't require lenses and bodies to be calibrated together. Dual pixel focusing helps mirrorless a bit, but it's not enough of an increase in depth (not even a millimeter) to help if the camera has totally missed the subject to begin with.
Without going into the full breakdown, the quickest and simplest way I'd describe it (which I'm sure will make some of the more pedantic techbros here irate) is that SLRs 'see' in 3D while mirrorless 'sees' in 2D. The more complex depth—the 'more 3D'—you have in the frame the more the advantage goes to SLRs, and vice-versa.

It's going to be a long time before mirrorless becomes the more common design for professional sports and wildlife shooters. Sports and wildlife aren't the 2D subjects that mirrorless accels at. I'm loving mirrorless for portraits, any studio work really, and the occasional slower insect on my walks, but when it comes to hectic action crisscrossing all over the place, whether that's a person in a team sport or one animal in a herd, the Canon 1D X III and Nikon D500 and D6 are still my top picks.


----------



## Franklyok (Sep 15, 2021)

Diltiazem said:


> CanonAsia is claiming that R3 has "higher resolution performance" compared to 5DIV. Hard to believe. It is around 6 minutes mark.


More DR.


----------



## Franklyok (Sep 15, 2021)

Martin K said:


> It's not. The European price includes tax. Seems fair to me.


6400 eur in finland. Nope sound like 6099 is the tax free price…


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s the difference between having an autofocus system sensitive to only one orientation, versus sensitivity to multiple orientations such as that provided by cross type sensors.


Yes, I understand that, and in the context of the R3, I wonder if folk who are accustomed to 1 level performance will be a little disappointed in the AF and that's why I was watching to see if Quad pixel would be a reality. Think of it this way - you drive with power assist brakes and happen to buy an old classic. You step on the brake and nearly have a fit - no problem, just step harder.

Jack


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 15, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> 6400 eur in finland. Nope sound like 6099 is the tax free price…


Your VAT rate in Finland is only 5%?


----------



## unfocused (Sep 15, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> Only when they've had competition forcing them to, though. When Canon put out their first R and FL cameras (and the Canonet fixed lens rangefinders) they were a big deal because they were undercutting everyone else by a huge margin, which as a company then-new to making camera bodies, they needed to be. By the time they progressed to the FD branding they were no longer the new kids on the block and Canon spiked their prices up despite many of the first FD bodies and lenses simply being FL products renamed. When Canon got auto exposure into a mass-produced consumer body they did so because by that point Nikon and Olympus had both caught up producing cheaper bodies and wider varieties of lenses to match Canon. When Canon started getting autofocus into the mass market they did so because Nikon, Pentax and Olympus had caught up to put autoexposure in every camera. When Canon made the first Rebel digital cameras they did it as cheaply and as quickly as possible, as word had gotten out Nikon had a design for a sub-$1000 digital camera and Canon simply didn't want to be beaten to market; the cameras themselves sucked, but Canon were at least driven.


I guess everyone's recollection of history varies. 

As I recall, in the late sixties to early 70s, Nikon dominated the professional photojournalism market (which was then the major market for SLRs) Canon was a quality maker of SLRs for consumers, but there were many others. Pentax was the major player with low cost models and they seemed to dominate the consumer market. Nikon barely looked at the consumer market and I believe they used the Nikkormat brand name to separate the consumer products from the professional. At the time, the biggest technological change was the inclusion of a meter built into the camera, with the first ones having the metering sensor located on the body of the camera. 

Canon elected to enter the professional market with the F1. When I purchased mine around 1977 I was working on a small newspaper and the market was almost completely dominated by Nikon. Everyone looked down on Canon. I chose Canon for the cost. I could get a professional body and four lenses for the same price as a Nikon and three lenses. My previous camera was a Konica which, as an aside, was the first SLR that had autoexposure. It preceded the Canon AE-1 by several years, but as often happens with technology, being first isn't as important as being good at marketing. 

In my recollection, it was the introduction of the AE-1 that really set Canon on the road to world domination, since consumers no longer had to worry about proper exposure and could concentrate on focusing. Those who never used a manual camera cannot imagine what a game changer that was. Nikon was slow to adopt autoexposure and paid a price for that.

At that point, I changed careers as even then the supply of newspaper photographers far exceed the demand and I was tired of being poor. 

I kept my F1 and lenses and they served me well into the 2000s when I took up photography again in the digital age.

That's my recollection.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 15, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I guess everyone's recollection of history varies.
> 
> As I recall, in the late sixties to early 70s, Nikon dominated the professional photojournalism market (which was then the major market for SLRs) Canon was a quality maker of SLRs for consumers, but there were many others. Pentax was the major player with low cost models and they seemed to dominate the consumer market. Nikon barely looked at the consumer market and I believe they used the Nikkormat brand name to separate the consumer products from the professional. At the time, the biggest technological change was the inclusion of a meter built into the camera, with the first ones having the metering sensor located on the body of the camera.
> 
> ...


Those were the days. That's what I recall. Bought an Ftb followed by an F1 that never failed and finally got sold out of embarrassment. 

Jack


----------



## BurningPlatform (Sep 15, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> 6400 eur in finland. Nope sound like 6099 is the tax free price…


A lesson in VAT calculation: 6400/1,24 = 5161,29


----------



## SonicStudios (Sep 15, 2021)

Curious why a full-size HDMI 2.1 port wasn't part of the new design, hopefully this is part of the R1


----------



## john1970 (Sep 15, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> Yes, I understand that, and in the context of the R3, I wonder if folk who are accustomed to 1 level performance will be a little disappointed in the AF and that's why I was watching to see if Quad pixel would be a reality. Think of it this way - you drive with power assist brakes and happen to buy an old classic. You step on the brake and nearly have a fit - no problem, just step harder.
> 
> Jack


I suspect that quad pixel might become a feature on the R1. It would definitely set it apart and be a much needed refinement in mirrorless AF technology. I would hope for a R1 no later than Q1 2024 for the summer 2024 Olympics.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 15, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I guess everyone's recollection of history varies.
> 
> [...]
> 
> That's my recollection.


If you're only talking about the professional market, yes, you are mostly correct. Nikon was 'the' system when it came to pro use and Canon was very much secondary around the world, and in a few countries third after Pentax. (Though it should be noted that the Canon F-1 you mention was only a new attempt as far as the FD rebranding was concerned, and they had been producing pro-level SLR bodies for about eight years before that with the FL branding, including models with _very_ rudimentary metering and automatic aperture.)
However, I was talking about the company overall, not just the pro market, hence why I mention things like the Canonet series.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 15, 2021)

SonicStudios said:


> Curious why a full-size HDMI 2.1 port wasn't part of the new design, hopefully this is part of the R1


It's always a tight squeeze to fit everything into bodies like this and HDMI out is nowhere near as important for these sorts of cameras as ethernet, full-size USB, and robust wi-fi/bluetooth. I imagine Canon figured putting a full HDMI port in would have taken up too much space better reserved for something else, interferred with heat routing, etc. This, the 1D, Nikon's D6, etc, are always a matter of prioritising the most critical specifications for the pros who most rely on these bodies with few other alternatives. The sort of people who really _need_ full HDMI out have many options and tend to not buy these sorts of bodies anyway; the people who _need_ ethernet out need this body to prioritise them.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 15, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> It lines up with what I've experienced with the 1D X III, R5 and R6.
> The very nature of how mirrorless focuses vs SLRs means that, until there is a significant breakthrough which likely won't be for a few generations, the autofocus of the very best SLRs will remain better for tracking subjects in complicated 3D situations with a lot of depth in the frame, assuming the body and lenses are calibrated together correctly, and the lens has an aperture big enough to take advantage of the SLR's many dual-cross-type focus points. The other end of this is that mirrorless is of course much more accurate when focusing on 2D scenes and don't require lenses and bodies to be calibrated together. Dual pixel focusing helps mirrorless a bit, but it's not enough of an increase in depth (not even a millimeter) to help if the camera has totally missed the subject to begin with.
> Without going into the full breakdown, the quickest and simplest way I'd describe it (which I'm sure will make some of the more pedantic techbros here irate) is that SLRs 'see' in 3D while mirrorless 'sees' in 2D. The more complex depth—the 'more 3D'—you have in the frame the more the advantage goes to SLRs, and vice-versa.
> 
> It's going to be a long time before mirrorless becomes the more common design for professional sports and wildlife shooters. Sports and wildlife aren't the 2D subjects that mirrorless accels at. I'm loving mirrorless for portraits, any studio work really, and the occasional slower insect on my walks, but when it comes to hectic action crisscrossing all over the place, whether that's a person in a team sport or one animal in a herd, the Canon 1D X III and Nikon D500 and D6 are still my top picks.


A very interesting comment. However, I can't help thinking of Arash Hazeghi who specialises in photographing raptors in flight and has switched from Canon (1Dx2) to Nikon (D5) to Sony (A1, A9)- he is very demanding of AF performance so I am trying to square this with your comments about the limitations of how MILC AF works.


----------



## gavinz (Sep 15, 2021)

Very helpful video. I wear glasses so I wonder about the eye AF drive working with them on.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 15, 2021)

Mikehit said:


> A very interesting comment. However, I can't help thinking of Arash Hazeghi who specialises in photographing raptors in flight and has switched from Canon (1Dx2) to Nikon (D5) to Sony (A1, A9)- he is very demanding of AF performance so I am trying to square this with your comments about the limitations of how MILC AF works.


I also am not convinced by that comment . The 1DXIII focusing while good is still limited at times. I’d expect the R3 to be better than the 1DXIII at locking on to moving objects.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 16, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I also am not convinced by that comment . The 1DXIII focusing while good is still limited at times. I’d expect the R3 to be better than the 1DXIII at locking on to moving objects.


Yes, i find it interesting as well. Recently I've been researching the R6 (finally bought it, it arrived today!), and there is a long list of content creators in the sports and wildlife area out there who have described their pro-series DSLRs as gathering dust since they went to the high end mirrorless stuff. One one of the other camera forums I hang out on, there are some high profile birders who have done the same. 

I'm sure the person who responded to my original post see it the way he does for a reason. And there is a difference between the cross type DSLR points, and the DPAF mirrorless systems. But my impression is that mirrorless will be replacing DSLRs in all major photographic endeavors much sooner than 'a long time' from now. 

Brian


----------



## Chig (Sep 16, 2021)

rbielefeld said:


> Just like everyone else, I won't be getting my R3 until the first batch of bodies is released given I am not a Social Media influencer of any "influence" at all. But, I am a professional bird photographer who has been shooting for almost 30 years and I have a YT channel at Whistling Wings Photography. I have done quite a few videos on the R5 and I will be doing bird photography centric reviews and set up videos of/for the R3 once I have had time to work with it a bit. So, if interested, I would be honored if you would visit my channel. Who knows, I might even provide some useful information; which does happen from time to time.


Hi Ron,
I enjoy your videos and I'd very interested to see how the R3 compares to the R5 for bird photography.

I do wonder how the lower mp will work and if the R3 has an edge in lower light which makes up for this and whether it'll handle smaller apertures better with adding tele converters , etc.
Cheers
Noel


----------



## Chig (Sep 16, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> 5000 plus 20% from VAT (Value Added Tax) gives 6000. But we may consider we are fooled in a way, indeed  ...


Yep, and at least if you get sick in europe you don't have to worry about going bankrupt paying for a medical bill like in the US


----------



## tron (Sep 16, 2021)

unfocused said:


> He said, in some situations, and my experience mirrors that. Others of a more technical mind can explain it better than I can, but there are situations when the R5 seems to go wildly out of focus and is unable to locate a subject.
> 
> From what I have read, it has something to do with how the R5 acquires the initial focusing point vs. how a DSLR selects the initial area to focus. I've experienced it primarily with small birds in trees. With a DSLR, I see the bird, initiate autofocus and the camera gets me in the right vicinity, allowing me to quickly refine the focus by zeroing in on the bird. With an R5 I have had a number of experiences where I spot a bird, begin the autofocus and the camera selects a focus point that is far to the back or front of the bird and I have completely lost the bird, which flies off before I can find it again.


I had the same experience a few times (not always of course) which makes me more comfortable with 5DsR, D500 and D850 rather than R5 for birding.


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 16, 2021)

Well it sounds like you can save the Eye focus calibration settings to a card (per the DP Review early look at the pre-production version). So my guess is that you can save other settings.


----------



## SHAMwow (Sep 16, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I never thought I would say this, but I learned the most from Jared Polin's review. For instance, the focal length now being visible in the viewfinder, and the customizable Q menu are welcome features that I have not seen mentioned by others.


I say this a lot on forums, but if you can see past Jared's gags and stuff, he easily has some of the best previews/reviews on gear on Youtube. Most other review or gear channels are the spec regurgitation, or a later review for clicks based on the internet consensus on the camera. I find Jared always mentions stuff I actually care about. And has decent photos and scenarios to showcase rather than some dumb pinboard, random street light, etc. I love all the hate he threw Canon's way between the 5D IV and stopped with the R5/R6. They deserved it. And now he's doing the same for Nikon until they catch up. I've always found him fair.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 16, 2021)

SHAMwow said:


> I say this a lot on forums, but if you can see past Jared's gags and stuff, he easily has some of the best previews/reviews on gear on Youtube. Most other review or gear channels are the spec regurgitation, or a later review for clicks based on the internet consensus on the camera. I find Jared always mentions stuff I actually care about. And has decent photos and scenarios to showcase rather than some dumb pinboard, random street light, etc. I love all the hate he threw Canon's way between the 5D IV and stopped with the R5/R6. They deserved it. And now he's doing the same for Nikon until they catch up. I've always found him fair.


And he's one of the few reviewers doing "1 year later" items to talk about how a camera performed over a full year of use and updates.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Sep 16, 2021)

Chig said:


> Yep, and at least if you get sick in europe you don't have to worry about going bankrupt paying for a medical bill like in the US


Well, indeed, and even if I love the country, I won't leave France to live in the US... 
We french are used to be ranting anyway (and perhaps that's one of the reason we still have some good social things left here )...


----------



## Viggo (Sep 16, 2021)

Can the R3 use Eye AF inside a Zone AF box?


----------



## Talys (Sep 16, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Well, indeed, and even if I love the country, I won't leave France to live in the US...
> We french are used to be ranting anyway (and perhaps that's one of the reason we still have some good social things left here )...


You can always come to Canada, and have the best of both worlds. Quebec is primarily Francophone, with the rest of Canada being primarily English-speaking, we have good social services, pretty decent healthcare, and our camera prices are not too different from our southern friends 

And when things are much cheaper in the US, many Canadian cities are a very short drive to an American one


----------



## candyman (Sep 16, 2021)

unfocused said:


> He said, in some situations, and my experience mirrors that. Others of a more technical mind can explain it better than I can, but there are situations when the R5 seems to go wildly out of focus and is unable to locate a subject.
> 
> From what I have read, i*t has something to do with how the R5 acquires the initial focusing point vs. how a DSLR selects the initial area to focus. I've experienced it primarily with small birds in trees.* With a DSLR, I see the bird, initiate autofocus and the camera gets me in the right vicinity, allowing me to quickly refine the focus by zeroing in on the bird. With an R5 I have had a number of experiences where I spot a bird, begin the autofocus and the camera selects a focus point that is far to the back or front of the bird and I have completely lost the bird, which flies off before I can find it again.


I can't make a comparison between R5 and 1DX II or III
But my R6 certainly has focus challenges in forest bird photography. Especially in sun/shade situations. The alternation of light and dark contrasts is quite a challenge. I adopted Arthur Morris's setup to quickly switch from Animal AF back to single point Af to get focus back. That doesn't always work either. My experience is that the R6 is more challenging than my 5D MK III. I'm still looking for the combination of settings to minimize it


----------



## canonmike (Sep 16, 2021)

Diltiazem said:


> CanonAsia is claiming that R3 has "higher resolution performance" compared to 5DIV. Hard to believe. It is around 6 minutes mark.


Interesting. Thx for the video link.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 16, 2021)

candyman said:


> I can't make a comparison between R5 and 1DX II or III
> But my R6 certainly has focus challenges in forest bird photography. Especially in sun/shade situations. The alternation of light and dark contrasts is quite a challenge. I adopted Arthur Morris's setup to quickly switch from Animal AF back to single point Af to get focus back. That doesn't always work either. My experience is that the R6 is more challenging than my 5D MK III. I'm still looking for the combination of settings to minimize it





candyman said:


> I'm still looking for the combination of settings to minimize it


I agree with this comment about the R6 as I work to tweak the AF settings, struggling to figure out why it sometimes focuses outside the focus area I thought I had selected. There is a learning curve here as one tries to alternate between settings, looking for the perfect dual back button focus setting combo.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> Looks like the eye initiated tracking is going to be very useful!
> 
> Jack


Have to say it I Like the body design (especially the back) and camera; looks superb to me with many innovations built in.

Looking forward in seeing what Nikon produces in their forthcoming Z9


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Sep 16, 2021)

Talys said:


> You can always come to Canada, and have the best of both worlds. Quebec is primarily Francophone, with the rest of Canada being primarily English-speaking, we have good social services, pretty decent healthcare, and our camera prices are not too different from our southern friends
> 
> And when things are much cheaper in the US, many Canadian cities are a very short drive to an American one


Well, another country I would like to visit indeed... but, makes me think... here, home, I don't need to drive...  Even, I never owned any car and have very rarely driven one in fact... 
Looks like I'm not (ready to be) adapted to life in north America (and probably in any other country)...  
I'm better keep on paying taxes, it seems...


----------



## Franklyok (Sep 16, 2021)

Diltiazem said:


> CanonAsia is claiming that R3 has "higher resolution performance" compared to 5DIV. Hard to believe. It is around 6 minutes mark.


ISO 50K as good as 200? I think AI is pulling details out of another dimention. IDK is this possible.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 16, 2021)

Diltiazem said:


> CanonAsia is claiming that R3 has "higher resolution performance" compared to 5DIV. Hard to believe. It is around 6 minutes mark.


I know my 1Dx III performs better than my II did, probably due to the improved AA filter, so I believe it’s possible since the 5D IV has the older filter.


----------



## TinTin (Sep 16, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> Only when they've had competition forcing them to, though. When Canon put out their first R and FL cameras (and the Canonet fixed lens rangefinders) they were a big deal because they were undercutting everyone else by a huge margin, which as a company then-new to making camera bodies, they needed to be. By the time they progressed to the FD branding they were no longer the new kids on the block and Canon spiked their prices up despite many of the first FD bodies and lenses simply being FL products renamed. When Canon got auto exposure into a mass-produced consumer body they did so because by that point Nikon and Olympus had both caught up producing cheaper bodies and wider varieties of lenses to match Canon. When Canon started getting autofocus into the mass market they did so because Nikon, Pentax and Olympus had caught up to put autoexposure in every camera. When Canon made the first Rebel digital cameras they did it as cheaply and as quickly as possible, as word had gotten out Nikon had a design for a sub-$1000 digital camera and Canon simply didn't want to be beaten to market; the cameras themselves sucked, but Canon were at least driven.
> 
> Now jump forward to the last few years of DSLRs and all the drive totally went aweay, much like the start of the FD branding. Canon absolutely did become "conservative", though I feel a better term would be "complacent". Canon coasted for a long time on the fact they had the largest distribution, thus the largest market share by default, and from about 2010 onward every new product Canon put out was very incremental in updates over the previous versions and it became an open secret that they were intentionally making the lower- and mid-range cameras less capable than was possible so they would have less pressure to push the high-end gear further.
> 
> ...



This, of course, is one interpretation of (recent) history, and it's one that's often put forward, almost as if it is the only possible account of events -- you could even say that those who propose it have themselves become "lazy" or "complacent" that it's the "true" account of the historical position.

However, I want to propose an alternative explanation which does not posit that Sony somehow "forced" Canon and Nikon into mirrorless technology. I suggest, rather, that Canon and Nikon did not enter the "professional" mirrorless market until they did because they did not consider the technology to be satisfactory for a "professional" product. (It follows that, despite this, Sony was prepared to do so, and in fact, it could be argued that Sony was "forced" to do so because of the dominance of Canon and Nikon in the DSLR sphere -- Sony had to find a niche.)

In support of this view, I put forward your own comments in post #78, where, at length, you argue that DSLR autofocussing "will remain better for tracking subjects in complicated 3D situations with a lot of depth in the frame". So, even today, by your own reckoning, some 3 years after Nikon and Canon entered the full frame mirrorless market, the technology still has some shortcomings compared to DSLR.

A similar point was made recently in a video by Tony Northrup, in which he claims that, at an estimated 20% of the share, Sony had "won" the Olympics 2020 professional usage. In 2016, he stated, Sony had 0%:



> That's really changed because in the last few years have been the mirrorless revolution. *Mirrorless has been around for a long time, but mirrorless had never even approached the professional sports angle just because of limitations of technology, specifically auto-focus capabilities with the big telephoto lenses -- it didn't work or the lenses simply didn't exist*, but times have changed and what we're seeing in the 2020 Olympics which, of course, are happening in 2021, is that Canon is losing a big part of the share. They're still the dominant force: when I look around I see the big Canon lenses and what I usually do is I look for the colour on the strap... What I see is Canon is roughly 60% and Nikon and Sony seem pretty much tied [20% each].


So, Tony Northrup is saying that, in 2016, mirrorless didn't "cut-it" at this level. By 2021, things had changed.

Nikon and Canon both entered the full frame mirrorless market toward the end of 2018, which can be seen as the time by which the technology had reached a level where they could offer products they were willing to put in the hands of full frame shooters. (According to your point, perhaps they did so too soon, but there may have been a degree of market pressure in that, had they left it much later, they would have ceded the game to Sony, so, maybe there is an element of being "forced", but this is not the prime factor.) And, it could be argued that, their doing so has, in fact, pushed Sony, which itself has had to up its game to hold on to as much of the market as it can. (Tony Northrup's figures are 37% for Sony, 33% Canon, so Sony has dropped from 100% since 2018, whereas Canon has risen from 0% of the full frame mirrorless market.)


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 16, 2021)

Mikehit said:


> A very interesting comment. However, I can't help thinking of Arash Hazeghi who specialises in photographing raptors in flight and has switched from Canon (1Dx2) to Nikon (D5) to Sony (A1, A9)- he is very demanding of AF performance so I am trying to square this with your comments about the limitations of how MILC AF works.



The birds I specifically go out to photograph most frequently—not counting snapping the back garden, I mean busting out the big gear to very purposefully locate a particular bird—are peregrine falcons. _Literally_ the single fastest animals on the planet. I'm lucky that they frequently nest here, so they're almost always available when I have a new body or lens to test out. It's rare to look for one and not find one, and about 50% of the time you catch them in full hunting stoop, which usually clocks somewhere north of 200mph. Second to that what I go after (bird-wise) are various owls, unsurprisingly in shaded woodland, which though much slower subjects are the much more complex, lower-contrast subjects for a camera to recognise.
If someone has found a combination that works for them, great, good for them, they can keep using it. For me, I'm trying these things against literally the fastest animal in the world and some of the best-camouflaged in low light. I'm not going to claim I have the very hardest tasks in the world—I'm not having to camp out in a rainforest for a month to catch a glimpse of the arse-end of a bird of paradise, certainly—but the camera's autofocus abilities _are_ being pushed to their absolute limits, and in these situations so far the top-end SLRs are consistently doing better than the top mirrorless, and technology simply does not improve fast enough for this R3 to have not only made up that gap but exceeded it. Mirrorless_ will _get there one day, but right now, a 1D X III or D6 has that edge when things are at their hardest.

Which is not something anybody should be surprised at, or defending. SLR autofocus tech has been around in every camera for over thirty years, and in some systems for about forty; mirrorless autofocus has only really existed for about half that time, and high-speed tracking is even newer. It should not be a contentious point that the younger tech isn't as fully developed in the most extreme use cases. (See also: the build quality of most mirrorless bodies and lenses, battery life, heat routing, etc.) Nobody should be expecting a brand new system to outright, hands-down surpass the previous one which has had many decades longer to be optimised.



Hector1970 said:


> I also am not convinced by that comment . The 1DXIII focusing while good is still limited at times. I’d expect the R3 to be better than the 1DXIII at locking on to moving objects.



The R3 _might_ be, but it is very unlikely (as I said, tech simply does not improve _that _much_ that_ quickly, as anyone who's watched the industry for more than a couple of years knows), and, more to the point, the comment you're referring back to was, as stated at the very start of it, talking about the R5 and R6, not the R3.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 16, 2021)

TinTin said:


> This, [rest cut for space]


I don't have the time to go through line-by-line after having written the last one above, and frankly I have very little patience for this sort of bizarre, anti-consumer championing of an allegedly righteous company who just want to give everyone the very best products possible (sidestepping that they've hiked prices well beyond inflation, held back functionality on some products for decades, etc), and I'm just going to answer you with this: I used to have close ties to people in Canon. I first came to this site because, at the time, I was one of the sources CR cited for some industry leaks. I've had similar relationships with Fujifilm, Sony, Nikon and Leica; it's not hard to find outlets covering those brands, as well as generalist outlets like PetaPixel and DCW, who have sourced me over the years. I am more of an outside spectator now as various people have moved to different positions and I myself am in a very different situation than I was at the time, but when I say Canon and Nikon were dragging their feet and only put in the effort when competition forced them to, I mean it and you can rely on that. When RF and Z were first being planned out I was one of the people getting that information out to these sites. It's not an "interpretation" of history; I was actually there, actually talking to Canon and Nikon staff directly involved, actually working on getting the news out.

And as far as Tony Northrup goes, the guy is often right in a general sense (and it's a bit sad that so many punters now kneejerk rebel against _anything_ he says just on principle), but his figures have always been a bit sketchy as he typically just extrapolates based on Google search term popularity, and in things like his video on the Olympics, yes he said Sony "won" the Olympics while simultaniously saying he counted more Canon cameras there (as you quoted) and his whole take boiled down to "a minority of shooters are convinced, therefore the entire industry has definitely switched", which obviously is a bizarre leap in logic. The man knows his stuff but by his own admittance in his podcasts, the nature of YouTube has meant he has to be more bombastic to keep engagement up. At best he's a well-informed critic, but he's never been on the inside of the industry and very little of what he says abou the industry on YouTube should be taken at face value. (His advice and expertise on actually shooting is a different matter; it is very odd to me that people_ still_ try to argue against his explanations of how depth of field works, for example, and he doesn't get enough recognition for the amount and quality of information he has made available to beginners.)


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 16, 2021)

Franklyok said:


> ISO 50K as good as 200? I think AI is pulling details out of another dimention. IDK is this possible.


noise reductions and lighting helps. The is is extremely high though. i would like to see a full res image.


----------



## rbielefeld (Sep 16, 2021)

Chig said:


> Hi Ron,
> I enjoy your videos and I'd very interested to see how the R3 compares to the R5 for bird photography.
> 
> I do wonder how the lower mp will work and if the R3 has an edge in lower light which makes up for this and whether it'll handle smaller apertures better with adding tele converters , etc.
> ...


Hey, thanks so much. One of the things I am going to look at very closely is resolution in the real world of printing and viewing large. I want to really see if 45mp is that much better than 24mp for detail on birds. I print large when I do print, so I want to do some direct comparisons and hopefully find where these two cameras land. Now, if I just had a R3. End of November, I am hoping.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 16, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I know my 1Dx III performs better than my II did, probably due to the improved AA filter, so I believe it’s possible since the 5D IV has the older filter.


And the R can be a little sharper than the 5D4, as is the RP to the 6D2 and the R6 to the 1DXIII, albeit all with a fraction more noise and banding. When Canon moved from the final .cr2/.pf2 generation to .cr3/.pf3 (which includes going from 1D X II to III) they eased off on the antialiasing at the same time, and it does seem with the move to RF they've reduced the strength of the filtering once more. So yeah, the 24mp R3 might well be a little sharper than the 30mp 5D4, though whether it retains enough quality in other regards to actually make a difference, we won't know until software can handle the raws.

The thing I'm really keen to find out is the bit depth of files shot at maximum speed on the R3. The R5 drops down to 12bit when it's at full speed, and 12bit with high ISO and ES artifacting never gives you as nice a result as 14bit with a mechanical shutter. The R3 could well be _sharper _than the other cameras, but whether you can actually _see_ that sharpness under the potential extra banding, noise, and crushed depth that may come from trying to get the ES to record at 30fps, is another question which can't yet be answered.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 16, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> The birds I specifically go out to photograph most frequently—not counting snapping the back garden, I mean busting out the big gear to very purposefully locate a particular bird—are peregrine falcons. _Literally_ the single fastest animals on the planet. I'm lucky that they frequently nest here, so they're almost always available when I have a new body or lens to test out. It's rare to look for one and not find one, and about 50% of the time you catch them in full hunting stoop, which usually clocks somewhere north of 200mph. Second to that what I go after (bird-wise) are various owls, unsurprisingly in shaded woodland, which though much slower subjects are the much more complex, lower-contrast subjects for a camera to recognise.
> If someone has found a combination that works for them, great, good for them, they can keep using it. For me, I'm trying these things against literally the fastest animal in the world and some of the best-camouflaged in low light. I'm not going to claim I have the very hardest tasks in the world—I'm not having to camp out in a rainforest for a month to catch a glimpse of the arse-end of a bird of paradise, certainly—but the camera's autofocus abilities _are_ being pushed to their absolute limits, and in these situations so far the top-end SLRs are consistently doing better than the top mirrorless, and technology simply does not improve fast enough for this R3 to have not only made up that gap but exceeded it. Mirrorless_ will _get there one day, but right now, a 1D X III or D6 has that edge when things are at their hardest.



I suggest you read Arash's comments on how the AF systems compare


Sony A9 II for BIF, initial impressions and comparison vs. Nikon/Canon – Ari Hazeghi Photography



and with SOny he says he is getting far more keepers of raptors, including peregrines in full stoop than he ever did with DSLRs:


Sony Alpha-1 field review for avian photography – Ari Hazeghi Photography


In the comments he even rates the R5 higher than the 1Dxii

There is more to all this than the camera - not least the capability of the photographer and which 'feel' you prefer. And if you prefer using DSLR, then fine. But when you use that preference to support as a technological fact that MILC technology is limiting, it seems one of the best, most demanding people for BIF disagrees completely.
As a matter of interest - have you used the Sony set-up at all?


----------



## canonmike (Sep 16, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Well, another country I would like to visit indeed... but, makes me think... here, home, I don't need to drive...  Even, I never owned any car and have very rarely driven one in fact...
> Looks like I'm not (ready to be) adapted to life in north America (and probably in any other country)...
> I'm better keep on paying taxes, it seems...


Oh, Pierre, we North Americans so envy you Europeans' availability of mass transit, primarily found here in only the largest cities. We are so inexorably tied to our fast cars, at least this generation, you know, the gen that grew up in the 50's and 60's and can't get over their love affair with the likes of the bad ass, gas guzzling SS396 Supersport, the 409, the 429, the 427, the 454, the Cuda, the Hemi, the SS Chevelle the GTO, the _ _ _ _ _ fill in the blank. Whatever we were driving, we could foolishly beat you to the next gas station. Gas prices be damned. Hell gas was only 20, 30 and 50 cents a gallon at the time. We only began to seriously consider mass transit when the middle east choked our petrol supply lines in the early 70's and shocked us into reality. Oh, the good ole days, when burning up our fossil fuels at an unsustainable rate never interfered with my ambition to beat the car beside me to the next red light. Somewhere in there, we guys, at least, switched to our love affair with our pick up trucks. Now, the muscle cars are mostly, nothing but a memory, at least for some of us but we still don't really have effective, nationwide mass transit, unlike you. We only get practical when we are forced into it, it seems. Now, when an old Canon AE-1 would probably suffice, instead, I opt for the latest Big Boy's camera gear, the R5, the R6, the 1Dx, the R3, the A-1, the whatever, attached to the fastest glass I can afford, of course. Now, let me go ride my mountain bike, camera strapped to my back, hit the main drag and see if I can find an old muscle car to photograph. Oh, drats! It's raining. Another day, perhaps......


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 16, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I guess everyone's recollection of history varies.
> 
> In my recollection, it was the introduction of the AE-1 that really set Canon on the road to world domination, since consumers no longer had to worry about proper exposure and could concentrate on focusing. Those who never used a manual camera cannot imagine what a game changer that was. Nikon was slow to adopt autoexposure and paid a price for that.
> 
> That's my recollection.


I remember these times very well as I too was starting out as a photographer. However I believe the Canon AE-1 was a huge success because it was cheap compared with cameras from the other mainstream brands (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Minolta), that offered similar features. I don’t remember the F-1 being much cheaper than the Nikon F2 at the time though.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 16, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I remember these times very well as I too was starting out as a photographer. However I believe the Canon AE-1 was a huge success because it was cheap compared with cameras from the other mainstream brands (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Minolta), that offered similar features. I don’t remember the F-1 being much cheaper than the Nikon F2 at the time though.


I remember the AE-1 well and a very capable camera it was and if I go down memory lane for a moment, I believe it also set all time sales numbers records for Canon. I don't remember pricing, as I never owned one. I had been a long time Minolta user back then, only because my dad owned a couple of Minolta SRT 101's(???) and many of their lenses. So, I bought a few Minolta bodies, so we could share lenses. When Canon finally came out with the A2-e and new L lenses with their quiet and fast ultrasonic lenses, I was hooked and made the change to the Canon camp.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 16, 2021)

Mikehit said:


> I suggest you read Arash's comments on how the AF systems compare
> 
> 
> Sony A9 II for BIF, initial impressions and comparison vs. Nikon/Canon – Ari Hazeghi Photography
> ...


Arbitrage, who specialises in extreme birds in flight shots, regularly switches between systems and went from Canon DSLR to Nikon DSLR, then the Sony A9, Canon R5 and subsequently the A1. He has no tribal loyalty and gives unbaised comparisons. He rates the A1 as marginally the best BIF camera closely followed by the R5. Just look at his images on Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## AlanF (Sep 16, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> The birds I specifically go out to photograph most frequently—not counting snapping the back garden, I mean busting out the big gear to very purposefully locate a particular bird—are peregrine falcons. _Literally_ the single fastest animals on the planet. I'm lucky that they frequently nest here, so they're almost always available when I have a new body or lens to test out. It's rare to look for one and not find one, and about 50% of the time you catch them in full hunting stoop, which usually clocks somewhere north of 200mph. Second to that what I go after (bird-wise) are various owls, unsurprisingly in shaded woodland, which though much slower subjects are the much more complex, lower-contrast subjects for a camera to recognise.
> If someone has found a combination that works for them, great, good for them, they can keep using it. For me, I'm trying these things against literally the fastest animal in the world and some of the best-camouflaged in low light. I'm not going to claim I have the very hardest tasks in the world—I'm not having to camp out in a rainforest for a month to catch a glimpse of the arse-end of a bird of paradise, certainly—but the camera's autofocus abilities _are_ being pushed to their absolute limits, and in these situations so far the top-end SLRs are consistently doing better than the top mirrorless, and technology simply does not improve fast enough for this R3 to have not only made up that gap but exceeded it. Mirrorless_ will _get there one day, but right now, a 1D X III or D6 has that edge when things are at their hardest.
> 
> Which is not something anybody should be surprised at, or defending. SLR autofocus tech has been around in every camera for over thirty years, and in some systems for about forty; mirrorless autofocus has only really existed for about half that time, and high-speed tracking is even newer. It should not be a contentious point that the younger tech isn't as fully developed in the most extreme use cases. (See also: the build quality of most mirrorless bodies and lenses, battery life, heat routing, etc.) Nobody should be expecting a brand new system to outright, hands-down surpass the previous one which has had many decades longer to be optimised.
> ...





aceflibble said:


> .... I rather thought it was common sense that anyone commenting here would be doing so based on their subjective and anecdotal experience......


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 17, 2021)

TinTin said:


> This, of course, is one interpretation of (recent) history, and it's one that's often put forward, almost as if it is the only possible account of events -- you could even say that those who propose it have themselves become "lazy" or "complacent" that it's the "true" account of the historical position.
> 
> However, I want to propose an alternative explanation which does not posit that Sony somehow "forced" Canon and Nikon into mirrorless technology. I suggest, rather, that Canon and Nikon did not enter the "professional" mirrorless market until they did because they did not consider the technology to be satisfactory for a "professional" product. (It follows that, despite this, Sony was prepared to do so, and in fact, it could be argued that Sony was "forced" to do so because of the dominance of Canon and Nikon in the DSLR sphere -- Sony had to find a niche.)....


Yes, very well said. Even if "one was there" that doesn't mean their opinion can't fall into the "stereotypical simplification" and often misleading or incorrect statements that are continuously made about Canon. I believe that Canon has often stated something to the effect that "ease of use" and reliability" are their main goals. Goals, that as a photographer, and not just someone interested in gear, I find far more important than jamming a lot of poorly or average functioning tech into a camera, which seemed to me (and others) was Sony's strategy at the beginning of their FF mirrorless path. Would Canon users have been happy if they released cameras that numerous photographers eventually called "beta" versions? Would Canon users have accepted what so many Sony users seemed to accept - that you would need to buy a new camera only a couple years after buying the previous version to fix all the bugs? 

Personally, I am glad Canon took their time, whether due to complacency or due to conservatism. I still get the feeling that getting it right is still important to them, as well as making the photographic experience as easy and enjoyable as possible.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 17, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Arbitrage, who specialises in extreme birds in flight shots, regularly switches between systems and went from Canon DSLR to Nikon DSLR, then the Sony A9, Canon R5 and subsequently the A1. He has no tribal loyalty and gives unbaised comparisons. He rates the A1 as marginally the best BIF camera closely followed by the R5. Just look at his images on Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


Yes nice work. Impressed at their shutter speeds. I must up my own shutter speed. Would love to try an A1 to see how it compares to the 1DXIII. The 1DXIII is better than all my other cameras for tracking but can still struggle at times. Small birds may always be hard to track.


----------



## Pixel (Sep 17, 2021)

Unless all of your lenses are RF, buyer beware. A lot of these features, speeds, etc are bound to be dumbed down with EF glass. Not that there's anything "wrong" with that, it's just not something Canon is going to willingly point out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2021)

Pixel said:


> Unless all of your lenses are RF, buyer beware. A lot of these features, speeds, etc are bound to be dumbed down with EF glass. Not that there's anything "wrong" with that, it's just not something Canon is going to willingly point out.


Good point.

Those details will hopefully be in the R3 manual when it comes out. For example, what fps can I get with my EF 600/4 II. For my other EF lenses (and TS-E / MP-E), lens performance (fps, AF speed) is less relevant for me, as long as the presumption of being on par with those attributes on my 1D X is met.

I have two RF lenses (24-105/4L, 100-500), and will likely replace my most-used EF lenses with RF over time (24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8). For many of my lenses there are no corresponding RF versions, and for a few (TS-E 17 and 24, 11-24) the filter adapter is a such an advantage it’s difficult to imagine what about an RF version would trump it.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 17, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> The birds I specifically go out to photograph most frequently—not counting snapping the back garden, I mean busting out the big gear to very purposefully locate a particular bird—are peregrine falcons. _Literally_ the single fastest animals on the planet. I'm lucky that they frequently nest here, so they're almost always available when I have a new body or lens to test out. It's rare to look for one and not find one, and about 50% of the time you catch them in full hunting stoop, which usually clocks somewhere north of 200mph. Second to that what I go after (bird-wise) are various owls, unsurprisingly in shaded woodland, which though much slower subjects are the much more complex, lower-contrast subjects for a camera to recognise.
> If someone has found a combination that works for them, great, good for them, they can keep using it. For me, I'm trying these things against literally the fastest animal in the world and some of the best-camouflaged in low light. I'm not going to claim I have the very hardest tasks in the world—I'm not having to camp out in a rainforest for a month to catch a glimpse of the arse-end of a bird of paradise, certainly—but the camera's autofocus abilities _are_ being pushed to their absolute limits, and in these situations so far the top-end SLRs are consistently doing better than the top mirrorless, and technology simply does not improve fast enough for this R3 to have not only made up that gap but exceeded it. Mirrorless_ will _get there one day, but right now, a 1D X III or D6 has that edge when things are at their hardest.
> 
> Which is not something anybody should be surprised at, or defending. SLR autofocus tech has been around in every camera for over thirty years, and in some systems for about forty; mirrorless autofocus has only really existed for about half that time, and high-speed tracking is even newer. It should not be a contentious point that the younger tech isn't as fully developed in the most extreme use cases. (See also: the build quality of most mirrorless bodies and lenses, battery life, heat routing, etc.) Nobody should be expecting a brand new system to outright, hands-down surpass the previous one which has had many decades longer to be optimised.
> ...


Having AF points across the whole frame is a big deal in many circumstances, especially when the subject is almost filling the frame and my 1DX2 wouldn't allow me to keep the body in frame with the eye in focus. Now I can pan the critter and the eye is locked in focus and the focus point can be right out to the edge. However, I have similar mild complaints along the line of what have been mentioned but from what I can perceive the R3 is not going to solve many of those.

Jack


----------



## Talys (Sep 17, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Personally, I am glad Canon took their time, whether due to complacency or due to conservatism. I still get the feeling that getting it right is still important to them, as well as making the photographic experience as easy and enjoyable as possible.


Me too.

The best thing about the R5 is that is that it works and feels the way that I think a mirrorless camera should. I've always (far) preferred Canon controls to Sony, Nikon, and Olympus anyhow, but the R series has just been very enjoyable an experience. But right behind is that there are some really killer, unique lenses, that I'm so glad were released in rapid fire (Relatively speaking) after Canon entered the market for FF mirrorless.


----------



## Chig (Sep 17, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> exactly what came to my mind. For stills it's no problem, if you frame first, look then at the object you want in focus and then push the button (that's how you did it with the EOS 3 or 5, e.g.). With video, you need to frame w/o moving your eye away from that object, which could be sometimes a bit difficult... at least, you have to train this if you use eye AF, I guess.


The eye controlled AF isn't available in video mode


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Sep 17, 2021)

canonmike said:


> Oh, Pierre, we North Americans so envy you Europeans' availability of mass transit, primarily found here in only the largest cities. We are so inexorably tied to our fast cars, at least this generation, you know, the gen that grew up in the 50's and 60's and can't get over their love affair with the likes of the bad ass, gas guzzling SS396 Supersport, the 409, the 429, the 427, the 454, the Cuda, the Hemi, the SS Chevelle the GTO, the _ _ _ _ _ fill in the blank. Whatever we were driving, we could foolishly beat you to the next gas station. Gas prices be damned. Hell gas was only 20, 30 and 50 cents a gallon at the time. We only began to seriously consider mass transit when the middle east choked our petrol supply lines in the early 70's and shocked us into reality. Oh, the good ole days, when burning up our fossil fuels at an unsustainable rate never interfered with my ambition to beat the car beside me to the next red light. Somewhere in there, we guys, at least, switched to our love affair with our pick up trucks. Now, the muscle cars are mostly, nothing but a memory, at least for some of us but we still don't really have effective, nationwide mass transit, unlike you. We only get practical when we are forced into it, it seems. Now, when an old Canon AE-1 would probably suffice, instead, I opt for the latest Big Boy's camera gear, the R5, the R6, the 1Dx, the R3, the A-1, the whatever, attached to the fastest glass I can afford, of course. Now, let me go ride my mountain bike, camera strapped to my back, hit the main drag and see if I can find an old muscle car to photograph. Oh, drats! It's raining. Another day, perhaps......


Nicely put overall. Though I think envy or regrets could be shared feelings for many of so-called developed countries in that regard.
It's not because I don't drive that I don't like beautiful cars too, for instance, and even helped them to be sold (I worked for a great car manufacturer for a decade). To me, in many European countries, we simply have more overall density of population with different needs, and that leads naturally to different transportation solutions, one of them being having more mass transit infrastructures. 
We all do what we can with what we know and I'm not sure one solution is better than the other at that point... 
Though, I'm sure that biking in the wild is great !!


----------



## thatguywitha.camera (Sep 17, 2021)

john1970 said:


> My understanding that is that settings can be saved to cards and transferred to other R3s.



Not only that, you can also transfer the configuration files to and from an R5, for settings that exist on both cameras.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 17, 2021)

Pixel said:


> Unless all of your lenses are RF, buyer beware. A lot of these features, speeds, etc are bound to be dumbed down with EF glass. Not that there's anything "wrong" with that, it's just not something Canon is going to willingly point out.


And yet, I see glowing reviews by users of EF glass attached via adapters to the R bodies. Would like to see a few of these dumbed down comments you are referring to, please sir, so I could possibly change my mind.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 17, 2021)

thatguywitha.camera said:


> Not only that, you can also transfer the configuration files to and from an R5, for settings that exist on both cameras.


I did not know that transferring between different camera models (e.g. R5 to R3) would be possible. I always thought that it would only be within a specific model for duplicate camera bodies.


----------



## thatguywitha.camera (Sep 17, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I did not know that transferring between different camera models (e.g. R5 to R3) would be possible. I always thought that it would only be within a specific model for duplicate camera bodies.



It usually is indeed not possible, and sure surprised me at a recent retail training for the R3. Surely a nice feature for when you need the speed of the R3 but also the megapixel count of the R5, and can easily copy the settings over without starting from scratch on each body.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 18, 2021)

thatguywitha.camera said:


> It usually is indeed not possible, and sure surprised me at a recent retail training for the R3. Surely a nice feature for when you need the speed of the R3 but also the megapixel count of the R5, and can easily copy the settings over without starting from scratch on each body.


An extremely welcome feature! But since not all features are available in both bodies, I'll probably spend an eternity double-checking that everything is as similar as possible anyway. 

Did you get to see the R3 in the metallic flesh?


----------



## digigal (Sep 18, 2021)

Jeff Cable just posted his review of of his experience of using only the R3 to shoot the Olympics and how it worked:








Finally - my real world review of the new Canon R3 camera!


Jeff Cable Photography, Canon R3, mirrorless, Olympics, sports, review, real world




blog.jeffcable.com




Definitely worth a read from a guy who has spent some real time with this camera.
Catherine


----------



## John Wilde (Sep 19, 2021)

Talys said:


> You can always come to Canada, and have the best of both worlds. Quebec is primarily Francophone, with the rest of Canada being primarily English-speaking, we have good social services, pretty decent healthcare, and our camera prices are not too different from our southern friends
> 
> And when things are much cheaper in the US, many Canadian cities are a very short drive to an American one


I live in Minnesota USA, and often wish that I was born on the other side of the border.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 19, 2021)

Pixel said:


> Unless all of your lenses are RF, buyer beware. A lot of these features, speeds, etc are bound to be dumbed down with EF glass. Not that there's anything "wrong" with that, it's just not something Canon is going to willingly point out.


Very misleading or BS. Can you give us facts. I have an ef adapter and i barely have any issues on my eos r, r5, and c70. So A LOT of what features are dumbed down.


----------



## Serenesunrise (Sep 20, 2021)

I have just visited the Photography Show at the NEC.
My visit was manly to hold a R3, the short wait was worth it.
What a wonderful camera to hold, the ergonomics are spot on, I asked for it to be paired with a RF 85 f1.2 which is well balanced in the hand and then with the RF 14-35 f4 which is so light.
The viewfinder is very bright and normal AF is very quick. 
Eye control works well but apparently is even better once you have calibrated the camera to your eye.
I then went to the Fuji stand to check out the GFX 100s which is a very nice camera but it felt a bit underwhelmed compared to the R3.
Purely for balance I visited the Sony stand and picked up a A9ii and then an A1.
Those cameras feel like picking up bricks…and trying to hold the camera is not good as the lens gets in the way of my fingers.
I spoke to a guy on the Tamron stand about RF lenses and he replied that when Canon release the intellectual protocols for the RF mount then they will start making RF lenses.
So no 3rd party lenses for a few years, I guess.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> Very misleading or BS. Can you give us facts. I have an ef adapter and i barely have any issues on my eos r, r5, and c70. So A LOT of what features are dumbed down.


There are only a very limited set of lenses that have reduced functionality with the adapter, and they're mainly really old lenses. The early 90's EF 35-80mm PZ lens doesn't power zoom when adapted to an R-series body, and the AF Stop buttons on the MkI IS 'great whites' (200/2, 300/.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6 and 400/4 DO) don't work via the adapter (source).

However, there are some notable body limitations with EF lenses. There are several 'popular' lenses, albeit older ones, that don't support 12 fps on the R5, e.g. the 100-400 MkI, the 85/1.2L II, etc. Those lenses could do 16 fps on the 1D X III, but are limited on the R5. As another example, the R5 and R6 (and presumably the R3 will) offer focus bracketing – that works with all the RF lenses but only with four EF lenses and three EF-S lenses (most of the macro lenses are on the list, but not the 100mm non-L and not other lenses with reasonable magnifications, like the 100-400 II).


----------



## john1970 (Sep 20, 2021)

Serenesunrise said:


> I have just visited the Photography Show at the NEC.
> My visit was manly to hold a R3, the short wait was worth it.
> What a wonderful camera to hold, the ergonomics are spot on, I asked for it to be paired with a RF 85 f1.2 which is well balanced in the hand and then with the RF 14-35 f4 which is so light.
> The viewfinder is very bright and normal AF is very quick.
> ...


Thank you for the review on the R3 ergonomics.


----------



## Pixel (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> There are only a very limited set of lenses that have reduced functionality with the adapter, and they're mainly really old lenses. The early 90's EF 35-80mm PZ lens doesn't power zoom when adapted to an R-series body, and the AF Stop buttons on the MkI IS 'great whites' (200/2, 300/.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6 and 400/4 DO) don't work via the adapter (source).
> 
> However, there are some notable body limitations with EF lenses. There are several 'popular' lenses, albeit older ones, that don't support 12 fps on the R5, e.g. the 100-400 MkI, the 85/1.2L II, etc. Those lenses could do 16 fps on the 1D X III, but are limited on the R5. As another example, the R5 and R6 (and presumably the R3 will) offer focus bracketing – that works with all the RF lenses but only with four EF lenses and three EF-S lenses (most of the macro lenses are on the list, but not the 100mm non-L and not other lenses with reasonable magnifications, like the 100-400 II


My EF 400 2.8 L IS II doesn't get near the FPS in mechanical shutter as my RF 28-70 f2L and the 400 isn't all that old. If you think all of your old EF lenses are going to work perfectly on the R3 you're delusional because it's physically impossible due to the lack of electrical contacts compared to the RF's.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> However, there are some notable body limitations with EF lenses.





Pixel said:


> If you think all of your old EF lenses are going to work perfectly on the R3 you're delusional because it's physically impossible due to the lack of electrical contacts compared to the RF's.


If you read my post and think I said all my EF lenses are going to work perfectly on the R3, you’re the delusional one here.

Incidentally, your post is not illogical. The R3 has _more_ contacts than an EF lens, therefore there’s no reason why all the functionality provided by a DSLR to an EF lens cannot be provided by an R-series body. Obviously only an RF lens can make use of the extra R body contacts for additional functionality.

EF lenses should work as they’re designed on an R body, and for the most part that’s exactly what happens. Except for the lens functionality changes I listed, the limitations are on the body side – the R bodies cannot deliver full functionality with an adapted EF lens. The R5 cannot automatically focus bracket with the 100-400 II, but the 100-400 II cannot automatically focus bracket on any body. The lens limits the functionality of the body. 

No one should expect them to work the same as an RF lens on an R body.


----------



## Pixel (Sep 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you read my post and think I said all my EF lenses are going to work perfectly on the R3, you’re the delusional one here.
> 
> Incidentally, your post is not illogical. The R3 has _more_ contacts than an EF lens, therefore there’s no reason why all the functionality provided by a DSLR to an EF lens cannot be provided by an R-series body. Obviously only an RF lens can make use of the extra R body contacts for additional functionality.
> 
> ...


I misspoke, the EF lenses will work perfectly, the camera however will be greatly throttled in performance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2021)

Pixel said:


> I misspoke, the EF lenses will work perfectly, the camera however will be greatly throttled in performance.


Greatly? Not sure about that.

The majority of the recent high end EF lenses can do 12 FPS mechanical shutter on the R5, so presumably they can do so on the R3. They can also shoot 20 fps electronic shutter (i.e., they are on Canon’s “List of lenses that the continuous shooting speed of max. approx. 20 fps less likely to decrease,” a list that also includes several RF L-series lenses (link). Not a lot of throttling going on there, beyond general caveats like a too-slow shutter speed limiting fps, which apply to all lenses.

I’m fairly certain that life without automatic focus bracketing is possible, at least for most people.

Perhaps you could provide some details about how, exactly, EF lenses are ‘greatly throttled in performance’, preferably with some references or documentation?


----------



## SteveC (Sep 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Greatly? Not sure about that.
> 
> The majority of the recent high end EF lenses can do 12 FPS mechanical shutter on the R5, so presumably they can do so on the R3. They can also shoot 20 fps electronic shutter (i.e., they are on Canon’s “List of lenses that the continuous shooting speed of max. approx. 20 fps less likely to decrease,” a list that also includes several RF L-series lenses (link). Not a lot of throttling going on there, beyond general caveats like a too-slow shutter speed limiting fps, which apply to all lenses.
> 
> ...



If he was thinking of the R3 (which would be germane to this thread), 20 fps is less than 30 fps so some of those lenses might slow the R3 down, depending on what their actual maximum capacity is. (If it's 20 fps, then yes, a 33% hit, if it's 35 fps, then no problemo.) All Canon said is they could keep up with an R5 at 20 fps.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2021)

SteveC said:


> If he was thinking of the R3 (which would be germane to this thread), 20 fps is less than 30 fps so some of those lenses might slow the R3 down, depending on what their actual maximum capacity is. (If it's 20 fps, then yes, a 33% hit, if it's 35 fps, then no problemo.) All Canon said is they could keep up with an R5 at 20 fps.


Since we have no idea what the situation will be for the R3, it's a rather premature to claim 'greatly throttled'.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Since we have no idea what the situation will be for the R3, it's a rather premature to claim 'greatly throttled'.



True, but I can at least see where his error comes from (confusing what amounts to "at least 20 fps" with "20 fps" because the phrasing didn't spell it out).


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 24, 2021)

Pixel said:


> My EF 400 2.8 L IS II doesn't get near the FPS in mechanical shutter as my RF 28-70 f2L and the 400 isn't all that old. If you think all of your old EF lenses are going to work perfectly on the R3 you're delusional because it's physically impossible due to the lack of electrical contacts compared to the RF's.



I would expect the EF 400mm f2.8 lenses to perform to the same high standards as they would on EF bodies when put on RF bodies. On the RF body I would expect a RF 400mm f2.8 lens to perform even better because it is designed to take advantage of the improvements inherent to the RF body.
In summary, it all depends on what you are comparing.


----------

