i have an R5 and had an R3 I sold last week. Replaced it with the R1. The layout and focusing of the R3 made it my favorite camera. The R1 is a step up from that. People with R5 shooting short eared owls in flight were always saying they preferred the resolution of the R5, but at the end of the day I had many in focus shots that were amazing and they had a lot more out of focus flying birds. I shoot with the RF100-500 and the RF600 f4. I'd grab the R3 or R1 any day over the R5 for wildlife and action.
Aloha Mark. Good to hear that the R1 is working out for you. I agree, in focus , tack sharp images are what I am after too. I think often when resolution is discussed the lens or the focal length of the lens should be mentioned as well. Looks like you have it covered with the 100-500 and ESPECIALLY the 600 f4. Incidentally that was the last piece of Canon gear that I sold. I loved it but it’s a little too long for what and where I want to shoot. I’m not much of a birder but I go crazy for owls! So good to hear that you had a good encounter with some shorties recently. Best of luck and thanks for watching and for your comment. Mahalo! Aloha, Lee
The R1 will be my next purchase and entry in the mirrorless camera coming from a Canon 5D mark 4. I had the chance to try this camera last week and I feel home. There are a lot of excellent camera on the market but I like the ergonomic of Canon cameras. I lens I am leaning to with this new body is the RF 100-300 f/2.8.
@@schildcl Aloha Claude. Thanks for watching and for your comment. I think you will really like the R1 and Canon’s mirrorless ecosystem. Mirrorless is definitely the way to go I think. Having exposure simulation and a histogram in the viewfinder is wonderful. I think your first lens sounds excellent, too. I am also interested in that lens. The EF 300 f2.8 II is the only lens that I regret selling. It was just fantastic and from what I hear the RF 100-300 is just as good! Have a great weekend. Aloha, Lee
I enjoyed your video! I'm a Sony shooter using the a7r5 and the a9. I love both cameras. I have been using the a7r5 for wildlife. Yes, it is slow, but the shots that get are truly amazing! For very fast action, I switch to the a9, and I love the images I get from it, too! The a9 is 24 megapixels, and the a7r5 is 60 megapixels! The a7r5 is 75% landscape and 25% wildlife! I love the photos from both!!!👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽
@@mspates5982 Aloha M! Thanks for watching and for your kind comments. The Sonys seem to be great cameras. Their sensors are everywhere, too. A testament to their IQ. I also like how they’ve made their telephotos smaller- like the new 300 and their 600 f4 is much smaller than Canons! I think ultimately having a high res for landscape and a fast camera with super fast AF for wildlife is the way to go. Thanks again for watching. Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
I’ve got an R1 on loan from Canon UK at the moment. I currently shoot on an R3 and R5. I like the R1’s autofocus, but it certainly doesn’t feel as nice in the hand as my R3, so I’ll be sticking with with Ive got, which is more than capable for my event work.
Aloha and thanks for watching and for your comment! Interesting! The R3 may really turn out to be the hidden gem in Canon’s high end line up. Do you use the f2 28-70 in your event work? That was one of the first things I thought about when I felt the heat of the R1. I thought that the weight would be more even with that combo . Not sure why I did but that’s what I thought because of the surprise in weight difference to the R3. How about any pain or discomfort in your wrist while shooting the R1? I could see that as a potential problem for some…. Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
@@LeeScott-LightSourceKauai Hi there. Yes I shoot with the 28-70 f2. Find it balances well on the R3/1. My hands are probably medium size, and the R3 is much more comfortable to shoot with for many hours. The R1 feels strained for my hands!
It’s a great camera, but from a business perspective, upgrading to the R1 won’t make me any more money, and the R3 and R5 do everything I need them to do, so for now I’m sticking with what I have. Enjoy it though!
I agree with you. The R3 is the nicest feeling camera body I have used across brands. Rented the all the popular bodies from the Z9, Z8 and I personally own an A1 but the R3 just feels so good in the hand. I wish they simply changed the innards of the R1 and kept the R3’s form factor. BTW, your wildlife photos are stunning. My favorite shots are the ones you incorporate the surroundings foliage to frame your subjects particularly the Leopard shot. It sets your work apart from the tons of wildlife photos I have seen online.
Aloha. Thank you for watching and for your kind comment. I am in 100% agreement with you-- Change the inside and keep the R3 body and feel. It's just about perfect in the hand. The leopard shot is one of my top 3 favorite images. I like cats, so that's another reason why it holds a special place in my memory. I took it in Ruaha National Park in southern Tanzania. If you like safaris that are more out of the way than the usual spots, I highly recommend it. I had good luck with leopards and wild dogs there. How do you like the A1? In your mind how does the newly announced A1 II match up? The Sony 300 f2/8 lens looks fantastic, too. Thanks again and wish you all the best. Aloha, Lee
@@LeeScott-LightSourceKauai The A1II is a solid update, adding features I’ve always wished my A1 had, like pre-capture and an improved EVF. It’s definitely tempting. However, I also own the R3, and while the A1 is undeniably more versatile, I find myself enjoying the R3 more because of its superior ergonomics. The A1 feels a bit cramped by comparison. Despite the R3’s 24MP sensor, I’ve never had any issues even with moderate cropping-it still delivers excellent results. It seems we share similar experiences with these cameras. My first digital camera was a Canon 1D Mark III, which I inherited from my dad. It only had 10MP, but I was still able to produce large, high-quality prints and post sharp, clear images on social media. That’s why I agree that 24MP is often more than enough-people today just seem to be drawn to the big megapixel numbers modern cameras boast. That said, I’m keeping a close eye on the R1 and following reviews from experienced photographers like you to gain more insight. I’m a sports and event photographer, I think the pre-capture feature and better AF could be a super useful for helping me nail those peak moments my clients value most. I could opt for the R5II instead, but I prefer the more manageable file sizes of the R1. I have probably photographed over a thousand events, and I can confidently say that none of my clients have ever requested ultra-high-resolution files. For them, megapixels don’t matter-they just want photos that are clear enough for display on their mobile devices and look great in their album prints.
Thank you! It’s too early to say as I have not used the R1 enough to make that comparison. However, the Dynamic Range of the SL3 is excellent. The best I have used to date. On the SL3 I use Highlight Weighted metering and then pull out the shadows with ease. And for wildlife that proved very useful when applying subject masks in LR. The colors of the SL3 are very good. I use Daylight White Balance to express the feeling of the changes in light. Whereas with the Canons I always use Auto White Balance. The Leica SL3 is a little too magenta, perhaps, for some scenes. I cannot speak to color of skin tones since I really do not photograph people. But in general the SL3 is a very fun camera to use for landscapes , seascapes, and night sky. I’m looking forward to seeing how the R1 compares.
Thank you! Will do. I plan on taking it out real soon and look forward to sharing my experience. I can say with confidence that the Z8 is better than R5 I that I used to shoot. Cannot say yet about R1. Which Nikon glass? Do you have either the 4 or 6 with built in TC? If so how do you like it? I think for me with the 4 that would be very useful. Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
@ I have both 400TC and 600TC. I’m pretty happy with the results. Especially for wildlife and tracking animals. I’m not too happy with my R3 AF performance so that’s why I’m interested in knowing about the R1
@@MrTedTed sounds good. Man, that 400 + TC sure was tempting. If I knew anything about Nikons menu system I might have gone with the Z9… I hope to test the R1 Sunday with birds in flight against the ocean background, always a challenging scenario. Thanks again!
Nice choice and congratulations, I use the R3 with the RF 400mm 2.8 never felt the need to add the R5 mk ii the results for me are fantastic and 24mp give me all the detail I would ever need, not to mention the low light benefit 😎
Thank you! And thanks for watching and for your comment. The R3 feels so good in the hand doesn’t it! The R1 feels a bit smaller than the R3 along the edge. It also feels “grippy” not quite sticky but like it has anti slip material or something. That’s pretty cool. When I had the R3 I would start every morning with the 600 on it while on safari. For the lowlight capabilities and the speed of AF. It’s still a great camera. I may try to find a used or refurbished for a backup. 400 2.8… the best lens Canon makes? I’m sure you love it! I’m guessing you also have the 1.4 ext? Can you see a difference- a loss in IQ- when using it? Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
I hope to get the R1 one of the coming days. In terms of lens I do have a RF 100-500, but at low light its performance is sub-optimal. In case I would buy a new lens today, it would be between the RF 100-300 and the RF 400 f2.8. I do own a EF 500 f4 Type II, but am really curious about the rumoured RF 200-500. So I decided to wait with buying a new RF lens.
Aloha Andius. Thanks for watching and for your comment. I agree with you, the 100-500 is convenient but in low light it’s not the best. I once owned the 300 f/2.8 and loved it, but often found 300 and 420 to be too short for wildlife. Since you have the excellent 500 f4 it could make a great pairing for you! I am interested in the 100-300 because I could use it for waves and some larger animals that happen to be near or while on safari, but I still think it would be too short for a lot of North American wildlife in the National Parks where there are limited hides and we must keep our distance. So ultimately I went with another lens. Like you, I too was waiting for the rumored 200-500. But eventually gave up (for now) and went with something else for optimum image quality. Thanks again. Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
@@LeeScott-LightSourceKauai For reach the RF 800 f5.6 or the RF 600 f 4.0 look great. But having a EF 500 Type II it is just expensive for a bit of reach!
Thanks for the video. On 24mp usually for wildlife the argument to go higher like the R5mII is cropping. Animals move erratic and it is very difficult to properly frame an action shot. Many prefer shooting a bit wider to have higher likelyhood to have what they need and later crop out the excess. That often leaves you with something like 24mp. But the ability to crop is what many look for. However if you can frame your shot perfectly, especially with static subjects, then 24mp is certainly enough. I just bring the argument I have seen many times. All depends on how and what you shoot.
@@MrMartin246 aloha Martin. Thank you for watching and for your thoughtful and well considered comment. Yes, I agree that more megapixels are often desired for just the scenario you outline above: cropping. Sometimes it is necessary for sure, but it’s rare that after cropping the image file cannot be printed to a pleasing size. For example , the short eared owl in flight at the end of the video. This image is cropped significantly from the 24 MP R3, and I print it in two sizes regularly- 8x12 and 12x18. The subject matter fits those sizes well and may not be suitable for a giant print. I think it comes down to practicality as well as in practice: ie, photographing while in the field. Before I sold all my Canon gear I shot with the 600 f4 and while I loved that lens for what it made possible I want to include more animals in landscape and environmental scenes into my wildlife portfolio. This is another reason why I think (hope) I will be happy with the R1. Of course if I am being totally honest I would have liked the R1 to have 30 MP or so if for nothing more than psychological reasons. Thanks again for your comment. By the way, how do you like the R5 II? Are you finding that it suits your needs? It certainly looks like a great camera! Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
This may sound like a stop gap for some but modern upscaling software like Topaz Gigapixel and Lightroom’s super resolution does a decent job increasing resolution if you really need to crop. I know a wild life pro that still use old pro bodies like the 20mp 1Dx iii and uses Topaz with no issues with his cropped photos. He has been shooting wildlife for 17 years and has a ton of raws on his NAS. He prefers using low mpx cameras because the files are smaller and less costly to store and only up res his files if needed.
The OM system is pretty amazing considering the size, reach and quality it provides! Thanks for commenting and for watching. Have a great weekend. Aloha, Lee
@@janvanholten7592 We have a Crosstrek! Subarus do the job, too. What lens will you pair with the R1? Thanks for watching and for your comment. Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
@ Awesome! I thought long and hard about one of those and purchased the other! Happy to hear that they are working out for you. Thanks for watching and for your comment. Best of luck to you. Aloha, Lee
@@LeeScott-LightSourceKauai, I have a RF100-500 and the RF600mm F4. And the 180 mm macro. The 17-40mm will be replaced when the wallet is filled again! You need something to wish for.
Aloha Michael! That’s a good guess!!! But I have a 90-280 for the Leicas so there is too much overlap. But I did shoot waves with the Leica to be sure that I would be happy with that set up for wave photography. For now it’s good so I chose something else. But it’s still in my mind for sure. I will say that the only lens that I regret selling is the EF 300 2.8…. Have you used the RF 100-300? I’ve heard so many good things about it! Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
@ Moin! The 100-300 is certainly way out of my price range. But since the wild animals I shoot are my kids my ancient EF 70-200mm f/2.8 works sufficiently. One can dream, though. Regards from Germany
@@michaelsteingraber9866 the EF 70-200 is a legend of a lens! I'm sure you get some nice "wild" kids images with that lens. Beautiful landscapes, too, with that lens for sure. Do they play sports? Soccer? or Skiing perhaps? I once asked a German guy who skies if he ever went to Wyoming or Utah for skiing. He looked at me like I was crazy and said, Why would i do that? We have the Alps! Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
I sold my Canon R3 9 weeks ago and was considering buying the R1, but the heavy weight of the Rf 100-500 with the 1.4 extender with the R1, and the fact that I still have the feeling that I If I am short on MMs, I am considering buying the Om-1 mk II with the 150-400. I then have a range of up to 1000 mm, which is more than sufficient. What also matters is that I don't know when the RF 200-500 will be released and what it will cost and what weight it weighs.
Exactly! I was surprised (and a little disappointed) that the R1 weighs more than the R3. It’s probably only a 100 grams or so but the feeling is substantial in the hand (without lens attached). And yes again, the 200-500 is the big mystery. I too was hoping to hear something soon but have given up on it for now because I’m going to Tanzania in February and want to get some practice in before the trip. Maybe once my bank account recovers I’ll be able to get the 200-500 whenever (if!) it is released. The OM system seems like a great way to go , especially when considering form factor, size, reach and portability. I am always shocked that such a small package delivers such quality and reach! Thanks for commenting. Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
i have an R5 and had an R3 I sold last week. Replaced it with the R1. The layout and focusing of the R3 made it my favorite camera. The R1 is a step up from that. People with R5 shooting short eared owls in flight were always saying they preferred the resolution of the R5, but at the end of the day I had many in focus shots that were amazing and they had a lot more out of focus flying birds. I shoot with the RF100-500 and the RF600 f4. I'd grab the R3 or R1 any day over the R5 for wildlife and action.
Aloha Mark. Good to hear that the R1 is working out for you. I agree, in focus , tack sharp images are what I am after too. I think often when resolution is discussed the lens or the focal length of the lens should be mentioned as well. Looks like you have it covered with the 100-500 and ESPECIALLY the 600 f4. Incidentally that was the last piece of Canon gear that I sold. I loved it but it’s a little too long for what and where I want to shoot. I’m not much of a birder but I go crazy for owls! So good to hear that you had a good encounter with some shorties recently. Best of luck and thanks for watching and for your comment. Mahalo! Aloha, Lee
The R1 will be my next purchase and entry in the mirrorless camera coming from a Canon 5D mark 4. I had the chance to try this camera last week and I feel home. There are a lot of excellent camera on the market but I like the ergonomic of Canon cameras. I lens I am leaning to with this new body is the RF 100-300 f/2.8.
@@schildcl Aloha Claude. Thanks for watching and for your comment. I think you will really like the R1 and Canon’s mirrorless ecosystem. Mirrorless is definitely the way to go I think. Having exposure simulation and a histogram in the viewfinder is wonderful. I think your first lens sounds excellent, too. I am also interested in that lens. The EF 300 f2.8 II is the only lens that I regret selling. It was just fantastic and from what I hear the RF 100-300 is just as good!
Have a great weekend.
Aloha,
Lee
I enjoyed your video! I'm a Sony shooter using the a7r5 and the a9. I love both cameras. I have been using the a7r5 for wildlife. Yes, it is slow, but the shots that get are truly amazing! For very fast action, I switch to the a9, and I love the images I get from it, too! The a9 is 24 megapixels, and the a7r5 is 60 megapixels! The a7r5 is 75% landscape and 25% wildlife! I love the photos from both!!!👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽
@@mspates5982 Aloha M! Thanks for watching and for your kind comments. The Sonys seem to be great cameras. Their sensors are everywhere, too. A testament to their IQ. I also like how they’ve made their telephotos smaller- like the new 300 and their 600 f4 is much smaller than Canons!
I think ultimately having a high res for landscape and a fast camera with super fast AF for wildlife is the way to go.
Thanks again for watching.
Have a great week.
Aloha,
Lee
heck yeah!!! your spot on with this video and great images. r1 def in my bag
@@Jmac-1 thank you Jimmy! I’m happy to have a Canon in my bag again! Best of luck to you. Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
Congrats on your new camera. 👍
Mahalo! I am stoked!
I’ve got an R1 on loan from Canon UK at the moment. I currently shoot on an R3 and R5. I like the R1’s autofocus, but it certainly doesn’t feel as nice in the hand as my R3, so I’ll be sticking with with Ive got, which is more than capable for my event work.
Aloha and thanks for watching and for your comment! Interesting! The R3 may really turn out to be the hidden gem in Canon’s high end line up. Do you use the f2 28-70 in your event work? That was one of the first things I thought about when I felt the heat of the R1. I thought that the weight would be more even with that combo . Not sure why I did but that’s what I thought because of the surprise in weight difference to the R3. How about any pain or discomfort in your wrist while shooting the R1? I could see that as a potential problem for some….
Have a great week.
Aloha,
Lee
@@LeeScott-LightSourceKauai Hi there. Yes I shoot with the 28-70 f2. Find it balances well on the R3/1. My hands are probably medium size, and the R3 is much more comfortable to shoot with for many hours. The R1 feels strained for my hands!
@@snappyft that was my first impression of the R1. It felt a little better with a lens attached but…
It’s a great camera, but from a business perspective, upgrading to the R1 won’t make me any more money, and the R3 and R5 do everything I need them to do, so for now I’m sticking with what I have. Enjoy it though!
@ Return on investment is always something that we must consider, for sure. 👍
I agree with you. The R3 is the nicest feeling camera body I have used across brands. Rented the all the popular bodies from the Z9, Z8 and I personally own an A1 but the R3 just feels so good in the hand.
I wish they simply changed the innards of the R1 and kept the R3’s form factor.
BTW, your wildlife photos are stunning. My favorite shots are the ones you incorporate the surroundings foliage to frame your subjects particularly the Leopard shot. It sets your work apart from the tons of wildlife photos I have seen online.
Aloha. Thank you for watching and for your kind comment. I am in 100% agreement with you-- Change the inside and keep the R3 body and feel. It's just about perfect in the hand. The leopard shot is one of my top 3 favorite images. I like cats, so that's another reason why it holds a special place in my memory. I took it in Ruaha National Park in southern Tanzania. If you like safaris that are more out of the way than the usual spots, I highly recommend it. I had good luck with leopards and wild dogs there.
How do you like the A1? In your mind how does the newly announced A1 II match up? The Sony 300 f2/8 lens looks fantastic, too.
Thanks again and wish you all the best.
Aloha,
Lee
@@LeeScott-LightSourceKauai
The A1II is a solid update, adding features I’ve always wished my A1 had, like pre-capture and an improved EVF. It’s definitely tempting. However, I also own the R3, and while the A1 is undeniably more versatile, I find myself enjoying the R3 more because of its superior ergonomics. The A1 feels a bit cramped by comparison. Despite the R3’s 24MP sensor, I’ve never had any issues even with moderate cropping-it still delivers excellent results. It seems we share similar experiences with these cameras.
My first digital camera was a Canon 1D Mark III, which I inherited from my dad. It only had 10MP, but I was still able to produce large, high-quality prints and post sharp, clear images on social media. That’s why I agree that 24MP is often more than enough-people today just seem to be drawn to the big megapixel numbers modern cameras boast.
That said, I’m keeping a close eye on the R1 and following reviews from experienced photographers like you to gain more insight. I’m a sports and event photographer, I think the pre-capture feature and better AF could be a super useful for helping me nail those peak moments my clients value most.
I could opt for the R5II instead, but I prefer the more manageable file sizes of the R1. I have probably photographed over a thousand events, and I can confidently say that none of my clients have ever requested ultra-high-resolution files. For them, megapixels don’t matter-they just want photos that are clear enough for display on their mobile devices and look great in their album prints.
@ 💯 keeping clients happy that’s the name of the game.
Congratulations on Camera . Beautiful gallery, how you compare color science and dynamic range SL 3 VS R 1 ?
Thank you! It’s too early to say as I have not used the R1 enough to make that comparison. However, the Dynamic Range of the SL3 is excellent. The best I have used to date. On the SL3 I use Highlight Weighted metering and then pull out the shadows with ease. And for wildlife that proved very useful when applying subject masks in LR. The colors of the SL3 are very good. I use Daylight White Balance to express the feeling of the changes in light. Whereas with the Canons I always use Auto White Balance. The Leica SL3 is a little too magenta, perhaps, for some scenes. I cannot speak to color of skin tones since I really do not photograph people. But in general the SL3 is a very fun camera to use for landscapes , seascapes, and night sky. I’m looking forward to seeing how the R1 compares.
Please update us with the lens and the AF. I have both canon and Nikon Z long glass . Would love to see what you think of the canon AF.
Thank you! Will do. I plan on taking it out real soon and look forward to sharing my experience. I can say with confidence that the Z8 is better than R5 I that I used to shoot. Cannot say yet about R1. Which Nikon glass? Do you have either the 4 or 6 with built in TC? If so how do you like it? I think for me with the 4 that would be very useful.
Have a great week.
Aloha,
Lee
@ I have both 400TC and 600TC. I’m pretty happy with the results. Especially for wildlife and tracking animals. I’m not too happy with my R3 AF performance so that’s why I’m interested in knowing about the R1
@@MrTedTed sounds good. Man, that 400 + TC sure was tempting. If I knew anything about Nikons menu system I might have gone with the Z9… I hope to test the R1 Sunday with birds in flight against the ocean background, always a challenging scenario. Thanks again!
Nice choice and congratulations, I use the R3 with the RF 400mm 2.8 never felt the need to add the R5 mk ii the results for me are fantastic and 24mp give me all the detail I would ever need, not to mention the low light benefit 😎
Thank you! And thanks for watching and for your comment. The R3 feels so good in the hand doesn’t it! The R1 feels a bit smaller than the R3 along the edge. It also feels “grippy” not quite sticky but like it has anti slip material or something. That’s pretty cool. When I had the R3 I would start every morning with the 600 on it while on safari. For the lowlight capabilities and the speed of AF. It’s still a great camera. I may try to find a used or refurbished for a backup.
400 2.8… the best lens Canon makes? I’m sure you love it! I’m guessing you also have the 1.4 ext? Can you see a difference- a loss in IQ- when using it?
Have a great week.
Aloha,
Lee
I have an R6 MK II I love the camera. Wildlife it has to be a Canon !!!
@@johnjr47 mahalo John! Yes, Canon makes some fine cameras, especially for wildlife. Have a great weekend and go shoot!
Aloha,
Lee
@@LeeScott-LightSourceKauai U2, Thanks, one day I would like to get a R3 or R1 fit great in my hands.
I hope to get the R1 one of the coming days. In terms of lens I do have a RF 100-500, but at low light its performance is sub-optimal. In case I would buy a new lens today, it would be between the RF 100-300 and the RF 400 f2.8. I do own a EF 500 f4 Type II, but am really curious about the rumoured RF 200-500. So I decided to wait with buying a new RF lens.
Aloha Andius. Thanks for watching and for your comment. I agree with you, the 100-500 is convenient but in low light it’s not the best. I once owned the 300 f/2.8 and loved it, but often found 300 and 420 to be too short for wildlife. Since you have the excellent 500 f4 it could make a great pairing for you! I am interested in the 100-300 because I could use it for waves and some larger animals that happen to be near or while on safari, but I still think it would be too short for a lot of North American wildlife in the National Parks where there are limited hides and we must keep our distance. So ultimately I went with another lens. Like you, I too was waiting for the rumored 200-500. But eventually gave up (for now) and went with something else for optimum image quality.
Thanks again.
Have a great week.
Aloha,
Lee
@@LeeScott-LightSourceKauai For reach the RF 800 f5.6 or the RF 600 f 4.0 look great. But having a EF 500 Type II it is just expensive for a bit of reach!
@@AndiusTeijgeler Haha. It all gets expensive!
@@LeeScott-LightSourceKauai Unfortunately!
Thanks for the video. On 24mp usually for wildlife the argument to go higher like the R5mII is cropping. Animals move erratic and it is very difficult to properly frame an action shot. Many prefer shooting a bit wider to have higher likelyhood to have what they need and later crop out the excess. That often leaves you with something like 24mp. But the ability to crop is what many look for. However if you can frame your shot perfectly, especially with static subjects, then 24mp is certainly enough. I just bring the argument I have seen many times. All depends on how and what you shoot.
@@MrMartin246 aloha Martin. Thank you for watching and for your thoughtful and well considered comment. Yes, I agree that more megapixels are often desired for just the scenario you outline above: cropping. Sometimes it is necessary for sure, but it’s rare that after cropping the image file cannot be printed to a pleasing size. For example , the short eared owl in flight at the end of the video. This image is cropped significantly from the 24 MP R3, and I print it in two sizes regularly- 8x12 and 12x18. The subject matter fits those sizes well and may not be suitable for a giant print. I think it comes down to practicality as well as in practice: ie, photographing while in the field. Before I sold all my Canon gear I shot with the 600 f4 and while I loved that lens for what it made possible I want to include more animals in landscape and environmental scenes into my wildlife portfolio. This is another reason why I think (hope) I will be happy with the R1. Of course if I am being totally honest I would have liked the R1 to have 30 MP or so if for nothing more than psychological reasons. Thanks again for your comment. By the way, how do you like the R5 II? Are you finding that it suits your needs? It certainly looks like a great camera! Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
This may sound like a stop gap for some but modern upscaling software like Topaz Gigapixel and Lightroom’s super resolution does a decent job increasing resolution if you really need to crop. I know a wild life pro that still use old pro bodies like the 20mp 1Dx iii and uses Topaz with no issues with his cropped photos.
He has been shooting wildlife for 17 years and has a ton of raws on his NAS.
He prefers using low mpx cameras because the files are smaller and less costly to store and only up res his files if needed.
@@ryanvacation7319 Interesting. I know Topaz Denoise is outstanding.
I would try the om1 mk2 with the 150-400 Lens, if i could afford the lens (have the camera).
The OM system is pretty amazing considering the size, reach and quality it provides! Thanks for commenting and for watching. Have a great weekend. Aloha, Lee
I chose the Canon R1 as my dream wildlife camera. What's your dream camera for wildlife and action?
R3 and R1 as soon as it is available! But I don't own a Toyota, instead, it's a Subaru Forester wich does the job also😀
@@janvanholten7592 We have a Crosstrek! Subarus do the job, too. What lens will you pair with the R1?
Thanks for watching and for your comment. Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
Congrats for choosing R1. I’m with R1 also, pair with RF100-300 and RF400f2.8. Been using them with my R3. These lens are fantastic.
@ Awesome! I thought long and hard about one of those and purchased the other! Happy to hear that they are working out for you. Thanks for watching and for your comment. Best of luck to you. Aloha, Lee
@@LeeScott-LightSourceKauai, I have a RF100-500 and the RF600mm F4. And the 180 mm macro. The 17-40mm will be replaced when the wallet is filled again! You need something to wish for.
I‘m guessing 100-300mm f/2.8!
Aloha Michael! That’s a good guess!!! But I have a 90-280 for the Leicas so there is too much overlap. But I did shoot waves with the Leica to be sure that I would be happy with that set up for wave photography. For now it’s good so I chose something else. But it’s still in my mind for sure. I will say that the only lens that I regret selling is the EF 300 2.8…. Have you used the RF 100-300? I’ve heard so many good things about it!
Have a great week.
Aloha,
Lee
@ Moin! The 100-300 is certainly way out of my price range. But since the wild animals I shoot are my kids my ancient EF 70-200mm f/2.8 works sufficiently. One can dream, though. Regards from Germany
@@michaelsteingraber9866 the EF 70-200 is a legend of a lens! I'm sure you get some nice "wild" kids images with that lens. Beautiful landscapes, too, with that lens for sure. Do they play sports? Soccer? or Skiing perhaps? I once asked a German guy who skies if he ever went to Wyoming or Utah for skiing. He looked at me like I was crazy and said, Why would i do that? We have the Alps!
Have a great week.
Aloha,
Lee
@ No skiing for this family. An so far no sports pictures, just casual portraits. Have a great week,
Michael
I sold my Canon R3 9 weeks ago and was considering buying the R1, but the heavy weight of the Rf 100-500 with the 1.4 extender with the R1, and the fact that I still have the feeling that I If I am short on MMs, I am considering buying the Om-1 mk II with the 150-400. I then have a range of up to 1000 mm, which is more than sufficient. What also matters is that I don't know when the RF 200-500 will be released and what it will cost and what weight it weighs.
Exactly! I was surprised (and a little disappointed) that the R1 weighs more than the R3. It’s probably only a 100 grams or so but the feeling is substantial in the hand (without lens attached). And yes again, the 200-500 is the big mystery. I too was hoping to hear something soon but have given up on it for now because I’m going to Tanzania in February and want to get some practice in before the trip. Maybe once my bank account recovers I’ll be able to get the 200-500 whenever (if!) it is released. The OM system seems like a great way to go , especially when considering form factor, size, reach and portability. I am always shocked that such a small package delivers such quality and reach! Thanks for commenting. Have a great week. Aloha, Lee
Hi Lee thanks for your response and have a great time in Tanzania.
I subscribed, you do too, Colleague
@@nickdual mahalo!