# DXOMark concludes that the Canon EOS R3 is the ‘best low light performer’



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 5, 2021)

> The always polarizing DXOMark has released their sensor score for the Canon EOS R3, and it’s the highest for any Canon camera in their database with a score of 96. While this may be Canon’s highest sensor score ever, it’s still behind offerings from Panasonic, Sony and Nikon, but very slightly.
> DXOMark did call the Canon EOS R3 the best low light performer in their full-frame sensor database, something Canon hasn’t been at the top of for quite some time.
> From DXOMark
> While we’ll have to wait and see what form a possible top-of-the-range EOS R1 takes, the Canon EOS R3 is certainly a compelling contender for its intended market. Not only does it have excellent dynamic range at key low, mid and high sensitivities, it has the best...



Continue reading...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2021)

For me, the real news here is that DxO has the R3 in hand, which hopefully means the R3 + lens modules for PhotoLab will be coming soon.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 5, 2021)

Interesting, will be eager to see what photons to photos report.

Edit: also excited to see this sensor tech in new cameras.


----------



## DBounce (Dec 5, 2021)

I can personally confirm that the R3 is quite good in low light. So much so that I sold my Sony A7S3. The Sony gets noisy from 1600 ISO, so you need to jump up to 12,800 to hit the high base gain. However, doing so adds unwanted softness because it’s not a “true” dual gain system. The R3 has a much more progressive response as the ISO level increases.

The R3 is surprising good and my favorite Canon camera to date. Size is perfect. Neither too large or too small.


----------



## john1970 (Dec 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> For me, the real news here is that DxO has the R3 in hand, which hopefully means the R3 + lens modules for PhotoLab will be coming soon.


That is my hope as well. This past weekend I photographed some ducks at ISO 10000 and was surprised at the detail and lack of noise in the RAW image in DPP4.


----------



## Niko Todd (Dec 5, 2021)

If those numbers are real/relevant, the R3 has the DR of D850, Medium Format Hasselblad X1D, and Pentax 645; and, as mentioned, the best low light score for any FF sensor to date.
And btw it shoots 30 fps lossless raws with best AF system(according to testers), plus animal af in video, plus big battery, and it's cheaper than 'you know who'.
But somehow 6000x4000 is a deal-breaker.
...
If the camera only had a clown face recognition... imagine the hit rate...


----------



## tron (Dec 5, 2021)

The R5 has the dynamic range of D850 too and it's 45Mpixel.

I do have both but I use them in different situations.

Actually R5 is underused until now but I have verified that it is easily (DXO) cleaned up to high iso (I have tested 10000) and it's superb for shooting at low light using IBIS + IS (I have tested mostly RF 24-70 2.8L IS)

I have shot once a low light scene with my D850 and 500PF (my only lens) I was amazed by IQ. OK, I was using tripod and low ISO but it seemed to me that I got the resolution of 5DsR with the low light IQ of 5DMkIV combined in a single camera!

I would get more Nikon lenses but I have a complete Canon system and I love Canon lenses... And now IBIS with R5 gives even more advantages...


----------



## DBounce (Dec 5, 2021)

Niko Todd said:


> If those numbers are real/relevant, the R3 has the DR of D850, Medium Format Hasselblad X1D, and Pentax 645; and, as mentioned, the best low light score for any FF sensor to date.
> And btw it shoots 30 fps lossless raws with best AF system(according to testers), plus animal af in video, plus big battery, and it's cheaper than 'you know who'.
> But somehow 6000x4000 is a deal-breaker.
> ...
> If the camera only had a clown face recognition... imagine the hit rate...


For most the MP count is largely psychological. I recall reading that the R3’s sensor produces detail closer to 30MP. And IMO this is true. The images have sufficient detail for most shooter. Unless you are someone that relies heavily on extreme crops. Personally, I almost always frame accordingly and almost never crop, but on the rare occasions that I do, it’s usually only minimal… But YMMV.

I went from the 45MP R5 to the 12.1MP Sony A7S3 and lived to talk about it. The R3 should suffice.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 5, 2021)

I shot the R3 in low light yesterday evening and found that it's about a stop better than the R5. I'm not talking about per-pixel apples and oranges, but versus the R5 downsampled to 24 megapixels. It still shot about a stop better. I don't know if it's from the sensor or also partly from some extra noise cooking going on, but whatever they're doing, it's working pretty well. 

The 24 megapixel aspect is, surprisingly, not much of an issue for anything that isn't reach-limited. It really does shoot above its megapixel weight. The comment from some days ago that it's about the sharpness/detail equivalent of the 5D4's 30 MP is probably exactly right. But at this point - despite loving the R3 - I don't plan on keeping it because the things I shoot typically *are* reach-limited, so the R5 is going to be better for me. 

My average published shot is perhaps 35 percent of the frame, and typically winds up 300 dpi. To give perspective, with the R3, if you shot in landscape orientation something you wanted to be on the cover of a magazine, you'd be able to crop only 1/8th of the height of the image before you sank below 300 pixels per inch. And, yes, you can get good cover shots with 4 megapixels, yada yada, but if you brought a 4 megapixel sensor to this knife fight, you'd get gunned down most times by someone else. I had the same decision back when I had the A9 Mark II (24mp) and the A7r Mark IV (61MP). I found eventually that I kept using the A7r4 whenever I went to shoot wildlife, even though it was really the remit of the A9; and it was just for the resolution. Been there before. But I do recognize my use case isn't normal. 

As an aside, I see a lot of people assuming the R1 will be a higher resolution sensor, but that actually doesn't conform to any Canon precedent. I expect the R1 will be a really cool camera with a sensor that will - as it has for the last decade, without fail - disappoint those wishing for resolution similar to that found in competing cameras. I'm hoping, instead, that we'll see an R5 Mark II in two years (yes, it'll be that long) that adopts much of the R3 tech and even more resolution.


----------



## john1970 (Dec 5, 2021)

*Mallard Duck at f8, 1/2000 sec at ISO 10000 with R3, RF 400 mm f2.8 with 2x TC


*


----------



## bbasiaga (Dec 5, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> I shot the R3 in low light yesterday evening and found that it's about a stop better than the R5. I'm not talking about per-pixel apples and oranges, but versus the R5 downsampled to 24 megapixels. It still shot about a stop better. I don't know if it's from the sensor or also partly from some extra noise cooking going on, but whatever they're doing, it's working pretty well.
> 
> The 24 megapixel aspect is, surprisingly, not much of an issue for anything that isn't reach-limited. It really does shoot above its megapixel weight. The comment from some days ago that it's about the sharpness/detail equivalent of the 5D4's 30 MP is probably exactly right. But at this point - despite loving the R3 - I don't plan on keeping it because the things I shoot typically *are* reach-limited, so the R5 is going to be better for me.
> 
> ...


I've heard a lot of predictions the R1 will be 60-80MP. I definitely think those folks will be disappointed. To get a camera with the speed and feature set of a 1 series moving that amount of data is certainly possible. But I think most of the target market doesn't want or need that resolution and with current battery technology the power consumption could still be an issue. That resolution will be saved for a 5 or 6 series body I suspect. 

For the R1 I don't think we'll see much more than 50MP max. I could see a few scenarios: 1) 50mp-ish stacked sensor to double the R3 2) 36-38MP sensor which is just enough to give 8k video and far enough away from the R3 to make sense or 3) The same or similar resolution to R3 but with additional features.

With the R3 at 24 and already blazingly fast, I doubt we'll see a resolution there or lower. Even with QPAF and global shutter, I don't know if that would be enough differentiation. Especially since I think they want to price this thing at $8-10k USD. (I'm hoping the competitive pressure prevents them from doing that anyway, but Canon doesn't seem to care usually). So I don't know how likely option 3 is. 

All just guesses, but I do enjoy the speculation.

Brian


----------



## kaihp (Dec 5, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> For the R1 I don't think we'll see much more than 50MP max. I could see a few scenarios: 1) 50mp-ish stacked sensor to double the R3 2) 36-38MP sensor which is just enough to give 8k video


You'd need at least 39.3MP to make 8K video. A photo sensor is 3:2 ratio which means that you'll need at least (4*1920) * 2/3 * (4*1920) pixel = 39.321.600 pixels, even if you only utilize 33.177.600 of them for the 16:9 video format.
If you want 8192 on the long side, the number jumps to 44.7MP.


----------



## john1970 (Dec 5, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> I've heard a lot of predictions the R1 will be 60-80MP. I definitely think those folks will be disappointed. To get a camera with the speed and feature set of a 1 series moving that amount of data is certainly possible. But I think most of the target market doesn't want or need that resolution and with current battery technology the power consumption could still be an issue. That resolution will be saved for a 5 or 6 series body I suspect.
> 
> For the R1 I don't think we'll see much more than 50MP max. I could see a few scenarios: 1) 50mp-ish stacked sensor to double the R3 2) 36-38MP sensor which is just enough to give 8k video and far enough away from the R3 to make sense or 3) The same or similar resolution to R3 but with additional features.
> 
> ...


All interesting speculation. They may do something in the 80 MP range and then have a pixel-binned setting at 20 MP. QPAF and a global shutter would be nice as well. At this stage, it is all speculation. There have been rumors that it would be a all in one camera so I am thinking some type of a high and low resolution setting with a single sensor is being developed.


----------



## AdamBotond (Dec 5, 2021)

john1970 said:


> *Mallard Duck at f8, 1/2000 sec at ISO 10000 with R3, RF 400 mm f2.8 with 2x TC
> 
> View attachment 201534
> *


It looks good for the high ISO, but this is a tricky situation. When there is a LOT light available, high iso will not produce nearly as much noise as it does in low light situation. I expect the R3 to be a better performer in low light than the R6, although recent test suggest the the difference is marginal for most.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 5, 2021)

Could Canon be flipping the script? R1 might just be a studio oriented camera and not sports oriented at all.


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 5, 2021)

As always, I wouldn't put all that much weight into DxO's low light score as it's really not useful the way it's defined.


----------



## Finn (Dec 5, 2021)

kaihp said:


> You'd need at least 39.3MP to make 8K video. A photo sensor is 3:2 ratio which means that you'll need at least (4*1920) * 2/3 * (4*1920) pixel = 39.321.600 pixels, even if you only utilize 33.177.600 of them for the 16:9 video format.
> If you want 8192 on the long side, the number jumps to 44.7MP.


Exactly like the R5.
I think it’s save to assume the R1 will need to be 40MP+ to compete with the very excellent Z9 and A1.
Canon already had a 45MP sensor. They will most likely take the R5 sensor stack it, BSI, and perhaps something else to improve performance and throw it into a R1 body.
I’m more curious about Canons upcoming video sensors and their supposed DR claims. I would love a C70 FF camera with a DGO sensor and 14-15 stops dynamic range.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 5, 2021)

raptor3x said:


> As always, I wouldn't put all that much weight into DxO's low light score as it's really not useful the way it's defined.


To it into perspective, if it does mean anything the way it is defined by them, the R3 is 0.27 stops superior to the R6 and 0.42 stops to the R5 at the lowest light levels. And, for the overall score, DxO doesn't include the number of Mpx.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> And, for the overall score, DxO doesn't include the number of Mpx.


In fact they do, albeit indirectly. Their sensor scores are based on normalization to an 8 MP image, so the higher the MP of the sensor the greater the amount of downsampling it receives. Downsampling mathematically increases SNR, so higher MP sensors get a slight bump on the subscores and the overall score (which is derived from the subscores with a weighted black box formula).


----------



## AlanF (Dec 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> In fact they do, albeit indirectly. Their sensor scores are based on normalization to an 8 MP image, so the higher the MP of the sensor the greater the amount of downsampling it receives. Downsampling mathematically increases SNR, so higher MP sensors get a slight bump on the subscores and the overall score (which is derived from the subscores with a weighted black box formula).


I was referring to this in DxO's write up about the overall score: "However, the Sensor Overall Score does not show a camera’s resolution". https://www.dxomark.com/dxomark-camera-sensor-testing-protocol-and-scores/ In other words, their overall score is another one of those mystical numbers and the 90, 95 and 96 overall scores for the three cameras is meaningless to what we actually do with them in practice.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 5, 2021)

"The EOS R3 also has built-in 5-axis sensor stabilization, which is claimed to reduce camera shake by up to 8 stops with certain IS equipped RF lenses."
That is not correct.
Canon IBIS can achieve 8 stops with certain non IS RF lenses.


----------



## StandardLumen (Dec 5, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> I shot the R3 in low light yesterday evening and found that it's about a stop better than the R5. I'm not talking about per-pixel apples and oranges, but versus the R5 downsampled to 24 megapixels. It still shot about a stop better. I don't know if it's from the sensor or also partly from some extra noise cooking going on, but whatever they're doing, it's working pretty well.
> 
> The 24 megapixel aspect is, surprisingly, not much of an issue for anything that isn't reach-limited. It really does shoot above its megapixel weight. The comment from some days ago that it's about the sharpness/detail equivalent of the 5D4's 30 MP is probably exactly right. But at this point - despite loving the R3 - I don't plan on keeping it because the things I shoot typically *are* reach-limited, so the R5 is going to be better for me.


Did you do any side by side comparisons scaling up R3 images to R5 sizes to verify that the R5 has a significant advantage in this area? I (like everyone else) assume it probably does, but I haven't seen anyone put it to the test.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> "The EOS R3 also has built-in 5-axis sensor stabilization, which is claimed to reduce camera shake by up to 8 stops with certain IS equipped RF lenses."
> That is not correct.
> Canon IBIS can achieve 8 stops with certain non IS RF lenses.


Actually, it’s both IS and non-IS lenses.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 5, 2021)

DxO is bad enough with its ever shifting standards, and, even worse, random upgrades and downgrades of sensor ratings well after the fact.

Now they have the nerve to call Canon "low life"? Or are they implying Canon customers are "low lifes" for buying the brand? 

How low can DxO go?

WAIT. Wait. Just a moment. My wife is telling me the R3 is a "low LIGHT" performer, that DxO is saying something good about Canon.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, it’s both IS and non-IS lenses.


I guess that makes the article technically correct.
They should have written it like you did.
"The EOS R3 also has built-in 5-axis sensor stabilization, which is claimed to reduce camera shake by up to 8 stops with certain IS equipped _and non-IS lenses _RF lenses."


----------



## jam05 (Dec 5, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> I've heard a lot of predictions the R1 will be 60-80MP. I definitely think those folks will be disappointed. To get a camera with the speed and feature set of a 1 series moving that amount of data is certainly possible. But I think most of the target market doesn't want or need that resolution and with current battery technology the power consumption could still be an issue. That resolution will be saved for a 5 or 6 series body I suspect.
> 
> For the R1 I don't think we'll see much more than 50MP max. I could see a few scenarios: 1) 50mp-ish stacked sensor to double the R3 2) 36-38MP sensor which is just enough to give 8k video and far enough away from the R3 to make sense or 3) The same or similar resolution to R3 but with additional features.
> 
> ...


Obviously Sony and Nikon believe to the contrary. And so does Fujifilm. The Z9, A1 both with higher megapixel offerings. One doesnt need 180mph capability on a 4 door sedan vehicle either. However it represents the vehicle horsepower. Not the speed the owner is going to drive commuting to the office. Like having a BMW suv with 90mph top end simply because the speed limit is 70


----------



## jam05 (Dec 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> To it into perspective, if it does mean anything the way it is defined by them, the R3 is 0.27 stops superior to the R6 and 0.42 stops to the R5 at the lowest light levels. And, for the overall score, DxO doesn't include the number of Mpx.
> 
> View attachment 201536


Everyone is different. 


AlanF said:


> To it into perspective, if it does mean anything the way it is defined by them, the R3 is 0.27 stops superior to the R6 and 0.42 stops to the R5 at the lowest light levels. And, for the overall score, DxO doesn't include the number of Mpx.
> 
> View attachment 201536


Of course that's your own perspective. And not everyone else. Why even write what you did? One interpretation of data without any substantive facts is just an opinion. You read the website infomation and now offering your opinion based on your own interpretation.


----------



## bbasiaga (Dec 6, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Obviously Sony and Nikon believe to the contrary. And so does Fujifilm. The Z9, A1 both with higher megapixel offerings. One doesn't need 180mph capability on a 4 door sedan vehicle either. However it represents the vehicle horsepower. Not the speed the owner is going to drive commuting to the office. Like having a BMW suv with 90mph top end simply because the speed limit is 70


Reasonable analogy. However the missing piece is when the presence of the 'extra horsepower' actually makes it harder to perform the professional task it was required to. With those fast cars, you're burning through expensive soft tires driving the speedlimit to work, paying high fuel and maintenance costs, and only reaping the benefit a small fraction of the time (if ever, at least in the US) - despite having paid extra for all of it. With 5G spreading and WIFI bandwidths growing, this will be less of a problem in the future. But there are stories out there from pros about difficulty with the file size of the A1, to select, process, convert and send them all on the 10-15minute deadlines they have (only to have them downsized for web in most cases anyway). And they can afford the $5k Macbooks with hyperfast processors. One of the YT channels did a survey over the summer where the professionals they polled landed on about 30mp as the 'sweet spot'. Which would imply that Sony and Nikon overshot, and Canon undershot. I suspect that poll if given to forum users or hobbyists would have netted a much higher number as 'the sweet spot'. 

Canon has way more data from their end users than we do, and they keep landing on these moderate megapixel numbers. And they keep selling tons of copies. So there must be something to their logic. 

As a hobbyist, the largest print I can reasonably fit in my house is about 36" on the long side, maybe 42 or 48 if I got really crazy. And that is easily done with 20ish MP. The scenarios where more is better exist and have been beaten to death. But in general MP count seems psychological for most people more so than actually physically limiting. Why do Sony and Nikon go higher? I think they needed to get 8k video in their flagships. (And that might be what sets the floor on resolution for an R1 as well.) Nikon especially needed to go all in on the Z9, or risk extinction. That camera competes well with the A1 and R3, and is priced to buy market share, all while giving hope to the user base disappointed in the Z6 and Z7 II offerings that better tech is coming. Sony may have thought they'd be the first mirrorless to 8k, but got surprised by the R5. Who knows? Its fun to guess though. 

To go to 80 or 100 and keep the speeds of a 1 series I think they'd need dual DIGIC Xs, which will burn through batteries. Pixel binning (mentioned earlier) still has a processor overhead and would seem to slow things down in some way as well, at least without extra hardware. Could they do 60 to top the A1? Maybe. But they never seem to play the specs game with their competitors. They have the R6 at 20mp going up against the newer Sony and Nikons in the low 30s, and selling very well. The R5 is insane. The R3 is winning over a lot of the early adopters out there with its IQ and focusing system. So I think Canon will surprise us with something in the R1. It could be megapixels, But if I were a gambling man I don't think it will be more than 50million of them! 

For my personal wish list, if it were less than $7k, 45mp, dual CFE slots, no video overheating, QPAF, no shutter, 20FPS (or 30 if I could throttle it), and improved EVF, I would consider buying it as my last body ever. Even though I have no business with that much camera as a hobbyist. If I didn't already have the R6, the R3 would almost fit the bill for me. But the QPAF is something I think I'd want if I were going to drop that kind of coin for the last time. 

-Brian


----------



## AlanF (Dec 6, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Everyone is different.
> 
> Of course that's your own perspective. And not everyone else. Why even write what you did? One interpretation of data without any substantive facts is just an opinion. You read the website infomation and now offering your opinion based on your own interpretation.


That was not an opinion, it was a simple piece of arithmetic firmly based on the facts that had been presented. I just converted the iso numbers DxO calculated from their measurements into stops by the standard equation to show what they would mean in practice.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> For me, the real news here is that DxO has the R3 in hand, which hopefully means the R3 + lens modules for PhotoLab will be coming soon.


Just out of curiosity how is the photo management feature of PhotoLab especially the keyword and gps management which I heavily rely on for organisation.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 6, 2021)

Well I‘m not seeing meaningful differences in normalized RAW images. The R3 jpegs with Adobe profiles are better than the earlier cameras, but I just don’t see that in the RAW files.


----------



## maulanawale (Dec 6, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Just out of curiosity how is the photo management feature of PhotoLab especially the keyword and gps management which I heavily rely on for organisation.
> View attachment 201560



IMO, It's not the best, I use both Photolab and Lightroom and when it comes to catalog management, I prefer LR.
PL has some nice features (Noise reduction being one) that are worth the price specially if you get it on sale, but is not as intuitive I think. It does seem to be less RAM hungry though.
Something PL has that does my head in every time, and I'm sure I could find a workaround but I'd like it to be different out of the box, is that in order to filter a folder, let's say 3 stars or higher, it is a drop down menu that is too long and you need to scroll, as opposed to just clicking the third start in LR.
I have to admit however that I'm probably not the average user when it comes to UI/UX and can find the simplest thing very annoying, when most people wouldn't even notice. But since you asked


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 6, 2021)

maulanawale said:


> IMO, It's not the best, I use both Photolab and Lightroom and when it comes to catalog management, I prefer LR.
> PL has some nice features (Noise reduction being one) that are worth the price specially if you get it on sale, but is not as intuitive I think. It does seem to be less RAM hungry though.
> Something PL has that does my head in every time, and I'm sure I could find a workaround but I'd like it to be different out of the box, is that in order to filter a folder, let's say 3 stars or higher, it is a drop down menu that is too long and you need to scroll, as opposed to just clicking the third start in LR.
> I have to admit however that I'm probably not the average user when it comes to UI/UX and can find the simplest thing very annoying, when most people wouldn't even notice. But since you asked


Thanks, so I can keep using my old LR license for organisation purposes while moving to another program(eyeing ACDsee or On1 or something else) for editing purposes.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Well I‘m not seeing meaningful differences in normalized RAW images. The R3 jpegs with Adobe profiles are better than the earlier cameras, but I just don’t see that in the RAW files.
> 
> View attachment 201561


Yes. Canon did so well with the sensors in the 1DXIII and the R5, and the R6 which is assumed to be derived from the 1DXIII's, it's a difficult ask to beat them on IQ.


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 6, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I shot the EOS-1Ds MkI, II, and III. If memory serves they may have trailed the 1D versions by a bit, but that's still a solid decade of precedent that the highest Canon resolution was in a 1 body.


The 1Ds series was a going concern until the 5D2 was introduced with the same pixel count as the 1Ds3. Then the 1Ds3 apparently became unsaleable. Nikon had a similar experience with their D3X. It was replaced by the D800 in a much cheaper body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Thanks, so I can keep using my old LR license for organisation purposes while moving to another program(eyeing ACDsee or On1 or something else) for editing purposes.


DxO made significant improvements in metadata handling and keyword management in the latest version (PL5). it was an area that definitely need an improvement, but to be honest I haven’t really tried the new features because I’ve always used another library management solution (Apple Aperture when it was still supported and now Photos, which is less powerful pet gets the job done).


----------



## bbasiaga (Dec 6, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Thanks, so I can keep using my old LR license for organisation purposes while moving to another program(eyeing ACDsee or On1 or something else) for editing purposes.


My method for library management in PL is to sort my photos, process them and convert the best ones to JPG. I then metadata/keyword tag those with the event, and other identifiable information (people, genre such as landscape, cosplay, etc). With that done, I can just use the keyword search tool and it will show me all the photos with that keyword tagged to the metadata. It can also search anything in the EXIF such as the camera or lens it was taken with. I've never used LR, but this has worked for me. 

As to the scrollbars - they are a bit annoying. But there is a second scroll bar that is thin that you can pull down to see the 'drop down you can't see' that the other poster was talking about. At least, if i'm thinking of the same part of the window he's thinking of. 

-Brian


----------



## LSXPhotog (Dec 6, 2021)

As of Monday morning I have shot a drag race for 2 days and a dark, outdoor Christmas party with the R3. I thought I was just convincing myself the sensor was performing so well on the R3 versus the R5, but then I shot the Christmas party in truly terrible light. Sunday, I edited everything. The R3 files absolutely performed a great deal better than the R5. Contrast and color remains very good at high ISO while the R5 tends to become very flat at high sensitivities.

I don’t like charts as a metric for using one camera over another. I just sorted through and edited over 1,000 files from the R3 alongside images shot with the R5. I can tell you that the R3 does a better job distinguishing between orange and red. I can also tell you that a high ISO image from the R3 has a considerable amount more dynamic range and edit beautifully.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 6, 2021)

StandardLumen said:


> Did you do any side by side comparisons scaling up R3 images to R5 sizes to verify that the R5 has a significant advantage in this area? I (like everyone else) assume it probably does, but I haven't seen anyone put it to the test.


So far, like LSXPhotog, I just shot a session with both cameras and saw the difference when culling pictures. No side-by-side comparisons yet. But I'm going to do a few. The most important test for me is slightly underexposed pictures at very high ISOs. Lots of the test data you get in the databases online are shot at proper exposure, which doesn't separate out the cameras as well as forcing them to deal with underexposure. From the experience a couple evenings ago, I expect the R3 will come out noticeably ahead, but will be interesting to quantify.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 6, 2021)

To tide you over, here is an imperfect, non-tripod, slightly different angle quick test shot of R5 and R3 at 50k ISO underexposed a couple stops and raised one stop. I expect that the more controlled tests will show similar results....


----------



## sanj (Dec 6, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> I shot the R3 in low light yesterday evening and found that it's about a stop better than the R5. I'm not talking about per-pixel apples and oranges, but versus the R5 downsampled to 24 megapixels. It still shot about a stop better. I don't know if it's from the sensor or also partly from some extra noise cooking going on, but whatever they're doing, it's working pretty well.
> 
> The 24 megapixel aspect is, surprisingly, not much of an issue for anything that isn't reach-limited. It really does shoot above its megapixel weight. The comment from some days ago that it's about the sharpness/detail equivalent of the 5D4's 30 MP is probably exactly right. But at this point - despite loving the R3 - I don't plan on keeping it because the things I shoot typically *are* reach-limited, so the R5 is going to be better for me.
> 
> ...


"1 stop better". That is a wow claim.


----------



## sanj (Dec 6, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> To tide you over, here is an imperfect, non-tripod, slightly different angle quick test shot of R5 and R3 at 50k ISO underexposed a couple stops and raised one stop. I expect that the more controlled tests will show similar results....


Which is which?


----------



## eosbob (Dec 6, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> despite loving the R3 - I don't plan on keeping it because the things I shoot typically *are* reach-limited, so the R5 is going to be better for me.


So, you will be selling said R3?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 6, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> As an aside, I see a lot of people assuming the R1 will be a higher resolution sensor, but that actually doesn't conform to any Canon precedent. I expect the R1 will be a really cool camera with a sensor that will - as it has for the last decade, without fail - disappoint those wishing for resolution similar to that found in competing cameras. I'm hoping, instead, that we'll see an R5 Mark II in two years (yes, it'll be that long) that adopts much of the R3 tech and even more resolution.


Well the 1DS, 1DS II and 1DS III easily beat (I and II) or matched any other resolution available, so I don’t know quite what precedent you are thinking of.

I also have no doubt Canon have done a ton of research and will produce the camera they think will sell best, current prospective purchasers are using 45mp (Nikon) and 50mp (Sony) options.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 6, 2021)

sanj said:


> Which is which?


The one on the right (file name ending in 22909) is from the R5. I'll do a proper series in the next day or so on a tripod with over and under exposures at two or three high ISOs (maybe 12k, 25k, 50k).

I am biased to my own sort of work, which is very light-limited, forcing me to underexpose in order to get a shutter speed that doesn't ruin the shot. It's this that I'm most interested in testing.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 6, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> To tide you over, here is an imperfect, non-tripod, slightly different angle quick test shot of R5 and R3 at 50k ISO underexposed a couple stops and raised one stop. I expect that the more controlled tests will show similar results....


50k iso underexposed by one stop is equivalent to iso 100k. The official iso range of the R5 is up to 51k wheres the R3 and the R6 both go up to 102k, so you really are taking this to beyond the extreme range of the R5. It would be interesting to see how the R3 does vs the R6. If you are working at these very high isos, then the resolution of a high density sensor is wasted in any case as the noise wipes out fine detail.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 50k iso underexposed by one stop is equivalent to iso 100k. The official iso range of the R5 is up to 51k wheres the R3 and the R6 both go up to 102k, so you really are taking this to beyond the extreme range of the R5. It would be interesting to see how the R3 does vs the R6. If you are working at these very high isos, then the resolution of a high density sensor is wasted in any case as the noise wipes out fine detail.



I think this is mostly a fair point, Alan. It might be most fair to compare 25k ISO, which is within the specs of both cameras when underexposed. That said, that the R3 goes another stop higher within its spec is indeed a quite an advantage for high ISO shooters. I look forward to some bench tests on all this. 

By the way, I've never allowed ISO to go to 50K before. With my 5D Mark IV, I capped it at 12K in the settings, and with my R5, I capped it at 25K. That 25K was sort of a desperation ISO setting, where I might be able to use a picture if I didn't crop at all. Maybe. That's my impression of the 50k shots I took a couple nights ago with the R3.

I expect there to be not nearly the same sort of difference in perceived quality at 1600 to 6400 ISO - as is shown by some of the comparisons you already see on the internet.


----------



## DBounce (Dec 6, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> To tide you over, here is an imperfect, non-tripod, slightly different angle quick test shot of R5 and R3 at 50k ISO underexposed a couple stops and raised one stop. I expect that the more controlled tests will show similar results....


It was evident after only a short while of shooting with the R3 that it is excellent in low light. I prefer this to the massive void in the ISO range that you are presented with when shooting on some dual gain systems.


----------



## DBounce (Dec 6, 2021)

Here is a comparison video pitting the Canon Eos R3 up against the Red Komodo 6K. Both are shot in 6K Raw and uploaded in 4K HDR.


----------



## webphoto (Dec 6, 2021)

Isn't DoX owned by Nikon?


----------



## docsmith (Dec 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 50k iso underexposed by one stop is equivalent to iso 100k. The official iso range of the R5 is up to 51k wheres the R3 and the R6 both go up to 102k, so you really are taking this to beyond the extreme range of the R5. It would be interesting to see how the R3 does vs the R6. If you are working at these very high isos, then the resolution of a high density sensor is wasted in any case as the noise wipes out fine detail.


Is it really a difference? If both are native ISO 51,200, and then bumped a stop in post, it is the same. 

By the R3/R6 being "Native" to ISO 102k, that is just saying ISO gain is added on the analog side, before the ADC, whereas with the R5, it is now added post ADC, or the gain is added to the digital signal.

But for tiggy's tests, they were both added within the respective native ISOs, then then had a stop added in post. The fact that the R3 could have been native at ISO 102k is not relevant.

Please correct me if I am wrong here. 

Tiggy...btw, thanks for sharing...this is exactly where I am interested in seeing if the R3 has an advantage over the R5...higher ISO, images scaled to the same size (Manny Ortiz just posted a video where he concluded the R3 was much better than the R5, but didn't scale...granted, the difference was apparent enough, I am not sure scaling would have mattered).


----------



## AlanF (Dec 6, 2021)

docsmith said:


> Is it really a difference? If both are native ISO 51,200, and then bumped a stop in post, it is the same.
> 
> By the R3/R6 being "Native" to ISO 102k, that is just saying ISO gain is added on the analog side, before the ADC, whereas with the R5, it is now added post ADC, or the gain is added to the digital signal.
> 
> ...


Actually, iso is not a gain, it is a measure of the ceiling level of the signal that is being collected. The noise is in the signal itself, not the recorded iso. If the iso is set at 51k but is underexposed by a stop, the signal and its noise are those which would have been if the iso had been set at a 102k. The noise in the signal is a combination of the noise in the photon flux, the quantum efficiency and the circuitry, and the circuitry of the R3 is designed to operate to lower levels of light, ie to higher iso. DxOmark‘s measure of the low level iso depends on a calculation of the S/N, and was equivalent to a 0.42 stop advantage to the R3 over the R5.


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 7, 2021)

AlanF said:


> DxOmark‘s measure of the low level iso depends on a calculation of the S/N, and was equivalent to a 0.42 stop advantage to the R3 over the R5.


Where are you getting a 0.42 stop difference in SNR? That would correspond to a ~2.5dB difference in DxO's measurements when what they've presented is more like a 0.5dB difference.


----------



## maulanawale (Dec 7, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Thanks, so I can keep using my old LR license for organisation purposes while moving to another program(eyeing ACDsee or On1 or something else) for editing purposes.


Based purely on my preference and experience, that is what I do with a couple of exceptions
I really like the RAW engine PL has, for all my bird photos, I'll import them to LR, tag and rate and do the admin bit, then the chosen ones go to PL (there is an option to export from LR to PL as a project) and I edit the RAW there. From there to Photoshop if it needs further work.
For non bird photos (around 1% of the total and mainly of my daughter) I simply use LR/Photoshop because I don't "need" the level of detail/sharpening PL provides. 

So I'm as niche as it gets and as bad a reference as you can imagine 

I should probably spend more time navigating PL to come to terms with the UI and stop complaining.


----------



## sanj (Dec 7, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> The one on the right (file name ending in 22909) is from the R5. I'll do a proper series in the next day or so on a tripod with over and under exposures at two or three high ISOs (maybe 12k, 25k, 50k).
> 
> I am biased to my own sort of work, which is very light-limited, forcing me to underexpose in order to get a shutter speed that doesn't ruin the shot. It's this that I'm most interested in testing.


I can see your need! Absolutely can.


----------



## sanj (Dec 7, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> To tide you over, here is an imperfect, non-tripod, slightly different angle quick test shot of R5 and R3 at 50k ISO underexposed a couple stops and raised one stop. I expect that the more controlled tests will show similar results....


Thank you for this. The difference is a lot.


----------



## sanj (Dec 7, 2021)

sanj said:


> I can see your need! Absolutely can.


However, I wonder if underexposing is better or using higher ISO.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 7, 2021)

sanj said:


> However, I wonder if underexposing is better or using higher ISO.


That's a very good a question. It depends how iso invariant the sensor is in the iso range you are working. You can check this by going to https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm
Here are the plots for the R5 and the 5DIV. You can see the plot is close to being flat between iso 800 and 40,000 for the R5. This means that there is no disadvantage to underexposing in RAW at isos greater than 800 and increasing in postprocessing to the equivalent of iso 40,000. For 5DIV, the plot slopes up from iso 800, which means you would get better results by getting the iso right and not underexposing.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 7, 2021)

raptor3x said:


> Where are you getting a 0.42 stop difference in SNR? That would correspond to a ~2.5dB difference in DxO's measurements when what they've presented is more like a 0.5dB difference.


Go back to my post number 18 where DxOmark's numbers are in the image. The R3 has a low light iso of 4086 calculated by DxOmark from their S/N data, the R5 is 3042. The difference in stops (ev) is log(base2) of 4086/3042 = 0.4256.
Note the iso for the R6 is 3394, only 20% poorer than that of the R3, and for which I calculated 0.27 ev. I think my calculations must be consistent with DxOmark as they write: "A difference in low-light ISO of 25% equals 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable." https://www.dxomark.com/dxomark-camera-sensor-testing-protocol-and-scores/#sports


----------



## tron (Dec 7, 2021)

Many thanks Alan for this. It seems more obvious if someone decides to put round numbers like 1000 and 4000 iso.

Log(base2) (4000/1000) = Log(base2) 4 = Log(base2) 2^2 = 2 stops <--- It's a nice way to explain to others and it kind of puts things into perspective. For example using your formula I found out that my R5 is about 1/5 stop better at low light than my D850 = practically equal.


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 7, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Go back to my post number 18 where DxOmark's numbers are in the image. The R3 has a low light iso of 4086 calculated by DxOmark from their S/N data, the R5 is 3042. The difference in stops (ev) is log(base2) of 4086/3042 = 0.4256.
> Note the iso for the R6 is 3394, only 20% poorer than that of the R3, and for which I calculated 0.27 ev. I think my calculations must be consistent with DxOmark as they write: "A difference in low-light ISO of 25% equals 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable." https://www.dxomark.com/dxomark-camera-sensor-testing-protocol-and-scores/#sports


That's what I thought, unfortunately it's an incorrect reading of the DxO low light score and really goes to show why the low light score is such a poor metric. The SNR is a component of the DxO low light score, but that score is determined by interpolating out the highest ISO setting that will satisfy a minimum value for three metrics: SNR, DR, and color depth. It's really the color depth one that tends to throw things off. Like I said earlier, your estimate of ~0.42 stops improvement in SNR between the R3 and R5 from the score is way off. DxO actually provides the SNR data and the reality is that the difference between the R5 and R3 is some where between 0.5-1dB, which corresponds to 1/12th to 1/6th of a stop. Nowhere close to 1/2 a stop.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 7, 2021)

AlanF said:


> To it into perspective, if it does mean anything the way it is defined by them, the R3 is 0.27 stops superior to the R6 and 0.42 stops to the R5 at the lowest light levels. And, for the overall score, DxO doesn't include the number of Mpx.


This coincides with the test samples at DPReview. I can't see a dime's worth of difference between the R3, R5, and R6 at high ISO looking at areas of solid tone (like the color chart). In areas of detail the R5 comes off a little better, naturally because it's got 45mp to work with. But noise wise they look the same. This is scaled to the same view size of course.

I don't doubt that DxO is detecting the small difference they are reporting, it's just difficult to observe outside testing software because it's <0.5 stop across the board.

This doesn't detract from the R3. It's a fantastic camera with a sharp sensor and killer features for the sports/action niche. It just continues the trend we saw in the 2010's: high ISO gains are small because for over a decade high ISO has been dominated by shot noise.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 7, 2021)

raptor3x said:


> That's what I thought, unfortunately it's an incorrect reading of the DxO low light score and really goes to show why the low light score is such a poor metric. The SNR is a component of the DxO low light score, but that score is determined by interpolating out the highest ISO setting that will satisfy a minimum value for three metrics: SNR, DR, and color depth. It's really the color depth one that tends to throw things off. Like I said earlier, your estimate of ~0.42 stops improvement in SNR between the R3 and R5 from the score is way off. DxO actually provides the SNR data and the reality is that the difference between the R5 and R3 is some where between 0.5-1dB, which corresponds to 1/12th to 1/6th of a stop. Nowhere close to 1/2 a stop.


My calculations from the DxOmark's sports iso data are done exactly the same way as they do theirs and give the same results. My gut reaction is that you are probably right that the difference is only 1/12th to 1/6th of a stop. The best way to check is by experiment. @privatebydesign showed from dpr's comparison tool that the noise in RAW files at iso12800 from the R3 seemed no better than those from the R5, R6 and 1DXIII when viewed at the same size. I've done the same at at iso51k, to check at very high iso where tiggy had some data, and the same as pbd found seems true. It certainly looks like your estimates of less than 1/12th stops difference seems very reasonable and close to thee truth. My gut reaction was that I found it difficult to believe that under conditions when the noise is primarily generated from just the statistical fluctuations in photon flux that sensors can differ greatly in S/N when  images are viewed at the same output size. Maybe you should take it up with DxOmark that their low light score and their interpretation is a misleading metric.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 7, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> This coincides with the test samples at DPReview. I can't see a dime's worth of difference between the R3, R5, and R6 at high ISO looking at areas of solid tone (like the color chart). In areas of detail the R5 comes off a little better, naturally because it's got 45mp to work with. But noise wise they look the same. This is scaled to the same view size of course.
> 
> I don't doubt that DxO is detecting the small difference they are reporting, it's just difficult to observe outside testing software because it's <0.5 stop across the board.
> 
> This doesn't detract from the R3. It's a fantastic camera with a sharp sensor and killer features for the sports/action niche. It just continues the trend we saw in the 2010's: high ISO gains are small because for over a decade high ISO has been dominated by shot noise.


My post overlapped in the ether with yours, and with a similar message. Frankly, those small differences would be hardly noticeable, and I think @raptor3x is right that it is even less. Anyway, the pluses of the R3 should be in other features, like its AF and speed of sensor readout, not IQ.


----------



## raptor3x (Dec 7, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Maybe you should take it up with DxOmark that their low light score and their interpretation is a misleading metric.


This is exactly the issue. Your way of calculating the relative performance between the R5 and R3 makes perfect sense but it only works if the DxO lowlight/sports score tells us something meaningful. I've been harping on them about this for a good 10 years now but the way they have that metric defined it's essentially worthless in any general sense. That said, the underlying data they collect that goes into it is quite good.


----------



## john1970 (Dec 8, 2021)

*Just FYI there is a new DXO Photolabs (v5.1) that now supports the R3. *


----------



## Fischer (Dec 10, 2021)

AlanF said:


> My post overlapped in the ether with yours, and with a similar message. Frankly, those small differences would be hardly noticeable, and I think @raptor3x is right that it is even less. Anyway, the pluses of the R3 should be in other features, like its AF and speed of sensor readout, not IQ.


This is also why we can expect that even a very high MPIX Canon body (80-90 MPIX) would not carry any noticeable high iso penalty - if any at all. Just like with the 5DsR.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 10, 2021)

Joules has started another thread about data from photons to photons, and the shadow improvement charts etc bear out what we have concluded here, not much difference up to iso about 40-50k, where the R3 draws ahead. The R5 is isoinvariant from iso 800 (or lower) whereas the R3 from iso 1273.





EOS R3 DR at PTP - as good as R5, but noise reduction throughout


I just spotted the R3 on the list at Photons to Photos: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R3,Canon%20EOS%20R5 Looks like it has virtually identical DR compared with the EOS R5. However, unlike the R5, noise reduction is now baked in across the whole ISO range, not...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## AlanF (Dec 10, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 50k iso underexposed by one stop is equivalent to iso 100k. The official iso range of the R5 is up to 51k wheres the R3 and the R6 both go up to 102k, so you really are taking this to beyond the extreme range of the R5. It would be interesting to see how the R3 does vs the R6. If you are working at these very high isos, then the resolution of a high density sensor is wasted in any case as the noise wipes out fine detail.


The results in the previous post bear this out: the R5 is designed to work up to 51k and the R3 to 102k. Though not many would want to go that high!


----------



## jam05 (Feb 17, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> I've heard a lot of predictions the R1 will be 60-80MP. I definitely think those folks will be disappointed. To get a camera with the speed and feature set of a 1 series moving that amount of data is certainly possible. But I think most of the target market doesn't want or need that resolution and with current battery technology the power consumption could still be an issue. That resolution will be saved for a 5 or 6 series body I suspect.
> 
> For the R1 I don't think we'll see much more than 50MP max. I could see a few scenarios: 1) 50mp-ish stacked sensor to double the R3 2) 36-38MP sensor which is just enough to give 8k video and far enough away from the R3 to make sense or 3) The same or similar resolution to R3 but with additional features.
> 
> ...


Historically Canon's flagship cameras always have a "wow" factor. Simply being functional would not fit that pattern. The R3 already has the functionality of the 1Dx series. The R1 can not be merely a functional device.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 17, 2022)

DBounce said:


> For most the MP count is largely psychological. I recall reading that the R3’s sensor produces detail closer to 30MP. And IMO this is true. The images have sufficient detail for most shooter. Unless you are someone that relies heavily on extreme crops. Personally, I almost always frame accordingly and almost never crop, but on the rare occasions that I do, it’s usually only minimal… But YMMV.
> 
> I went from the 45MP R5 to the 12.1MP Sony A7S3 and lived to talk about it. The R3 should suffice.


Extremely delayed reply, just hit this discussion by accident: my wife still uses some old 12 MP Nikons (D300S, D700) and even got wonderfully detailed A3 prints from those cameras. Like you, of course, she prefers to frame her images properly and use the full sensor (she is a really skilled photograper).


----------

