I’ve had the exact opposite experience, since owning the R3 I’ve barely used the R5 and it’s really only come out in situations where I can take my time and set up. The R3 is just a workhorse and it really feels like there’s no limit to what you can do with it while with the R5 there’s things like rolling shutter that you have to be mindful of. Sure the R5 has more resolution but 90% of the time we’re posting stuff to Instagram at 1080px wide and honestly, the lower resolution pushes me to be a better photographer because I have to get closer to the subject.
My thoughts exactly, I have both and since buying the R3 I havent used my R5.. But I do get close to my subject via hides and the like.. The 1DX cameras of the last 10 years have barely gotten over 20 MP in there time and have been the workhorse of many bird and wildlife photographers.. Not sure why we say 'ONLY' 24 MP!! Its plenty.. after all most of our imagery only ends up on social media and printing to say A3 only requires 10 MP...
@@GazFoto me three 🙂 I went from the DX2 to DX3 and now R3 and never been limited by pixels, not sure why there is this huge obsession with high pixel cameras, my R5 hardly gets used since the R3 came along. Never been a fan of huge crops, and all that detail is only seen in processing when pixel peeping, most social media and web all that detail is not visible, you would be hard pushed to see the difference in most cameras. The other thing I don't understand is our eyes don't actually see all that fine feather detail, why do we need to see it enlarged in a photo?
@@tonyesposito9602 Couldn't agree more, I dont expect anyone could look at a picture and tell you what camera was used, certainly not in the places we view images today, social media, web etc... Think we get to obsessed with gear in some ways..!!
@@tonyesposito9602 I agree also. I own the R6 and use it with my EF 600mm II lens. Even with the 2x extender the resolution is so good. Definitely much improved over my 1DX that I quickly sold once I went mirrorless. For me, although I haven’t used an R5, I honestly think the smaller file sizes and (arguably better) low light performance of the R6 is perfect since I don’t crop much either. I haven’t experimented with heavy crops with a 45mp camera. If the files look as if they weren’t cropped at all, that would be an advantage, but I never try to look at it from the crop later perspective. The R3 would be a great camera, I just ran out of money haha
I have an R3, and I live in an area that is frequently overcast and where photography in dim forests is common. The low light performance of the camera is exactly why I got it, and I've been very pleased with that decision. I do think about getting an R5 sometimes as a second body, but I think for me the R3 is best as a main body.
Hi Jan, I love your videos. From here at around 8:00 (and other pro reviews are similar) I think you may have missed that the R5 can in fact do what you claim is new to the R3 - initiate tracking at a point or limited area that you specify. I set up both R5 & R3 functionally identically with triple back-button focus, but the setup method is slightly different. Let's call the 3 back buttons from left-to-right BB1 (AF-ON button), BB2 (*), BB3 (AF point). I have the main AF mode initiated by BB1 usually set to Spot-AF, with BB2 and BB3 initiating tracking-AF in two different modes. ( Doing it your way around with BB1 set to tracking-AF disables the Magnify button. For a still subject I like to be able to magnify to manually fine tune focus. ) On the R5, the next thing you need to do is go to menu AF5.1 "Initial Servo AF pt for tracking". Select the second option - this tells the camera to initiate tracking AF at the point/area you last specified in a non-tracking AF mode like Spot-AF. In other words, if there are multiple possible faces/eyes in frame, it will try to initiate tracking at or close to wherever you were pointing the Spot-AF box. Now go to Customize Buttons, and set BB2 (the * button) to "Metering & AF start", and in the Detail Set specify AF method = Tracking. Set BB3 (the AF point button) to "Eye Detection AF". I discovered by trial and error that if you set it up this way, BB2 will respect the setting in menu AF5.1 and initiate tracking at wherever you were pointing Spot-AF using BB1. But BB3 will ignore the setting in menu AF5.1. BB3 will ignore where you were pointing Spot-AF using BB1, instead it will use AUTO tracking-AF initiation to evaluate the whole screen to choose what it thinks is the subject. You can prove this difference in behavior if you have a wall poster or something with multiple faces. Position one face in the center and one on the edge of the frame. Use BB1 to point Spot-AF at the face on the edge of the frame. BB2 with start tracking the face on the edge, whereas BB3 will ignore your Spot-AF point and prefer the face in the middle of the frame. So shooting wildlife goes as follows: usually I'm starting with BB1 and first directing Spot-AF at the subject I want to track. Then I go to BB2, and tracking-AF initiates from I where I was pointing Spot-AF. This reliably starts tracking exactly what I want it to track, even if the image is complex or there are multiple possible targets. However, if things are moving very quickly and I don't have time to pick out my subject, I will just go straight to BB3 and let the software pick out what it thinks is the subject from the whole screen. I would use BB3 for a bird returning to a perch that I want the tracking-AF to jump to when it comes in frame, or for a bird that I expect to lift from behind ground cover where I cannot first pick it out with Spot-AF on the ground. Setup on the R3 is similar, but the menu AF5.1 has disappeared. Instead, in Customize Buttons when you set BB2 (* button) to "Metering & AF start", the Detail Set allows you to specify Tracking-AF and also the AF area. If you specify anything other than Whole Area, Tracking-AF will initiate using a spot or an area that is centered on wherever you were last pointing the focus in a non-tracking AF mode. For BB3 (the AF point button) you do the same as the R5, select Eye Detection AF. This has no Detail Set, it will always use Whole Area. This then gives you a triple back-button focus arrangement that replicates what I described for the R5.
The advantages of R3 over R5 are enormous but my R5 and RF 100-500mm cost $600 more than just the body of the R3. I don't do action photography and as you illustrated, cropping in on a small bird like Goldfinch or Bunting still ends up being very good. Coming from 7D2 straight to R5, there are no complains when using the R5. I appreciate your work as always❤️😍
I can’t justify an R3 while knowing an R1 is coming which will blow both out of the water. These camera companies have “money milking” down to a science and I think I’ll wait a year or two before I move from the R5.
I own the R3 and so wished I got the R 5 before I dropped $6K on it, I don't care about features, bells and whistles, it all bold down to image quality because that is what the client cares about. And it is hard to compete with image quality with another photographer shooting the same things with the R5....clients are going to buy that level of quality over the R3's measly 24 pixels...I mean the R5 blows the R3 away with image quality. Wish I could return my R3, it cost twice as much as the R5. I considered trading it for an R5
@@HollywoodConnection-jast "It's kind of hard to compete on image quality when another photographer is shooting the same thing with an R5..." Maybe that's the problem? It's kind of like the difference between a 1080p and a 4k television. It's not the resolution of the TV I am watching! It's what's playing on the TV I am watching!
I like the video. I rarely shoot video. For Bird Photography I love the R5. The large files give great image quality when cropping small birds. If I shot sports I think the R5 might be better. I also shoot events and again the R5 is excellent.
This was an awesome review and real-life comparison. Scientific, yet easy to understand. I'm surprised that you don't have more subscribers, considering the content and production quality, not to mention the amazing bird photos and videos.
Yes, Jan definitely deserves more followers but he'll get there. He's putting forth the kind of content that will hopefully accelerate him faster. I don't even shoot BIF or wildlife (recently retired news media photographer) but I'm very appreciative of his analysis and, of course, the beauty of his work.
The knowledge and ease of understanding is there. He just doesn’t have the personality that can add to the entertainment factor. He’s a brilliant teacher but he doesn’t hold your attention like a Peter M. or Jared P.
@@edwinclark1493 I understand why many (I guess, most) people prefer the jazzy style and frequent interruptions with video flairs of those other youtubers, but my preference is for a no-nonsense approach. I appreciate the plain-spoken, almost academic, delivery.
I use the R5 and have zero complaints. A couple of tweaks here and there would be nice but not essential plus the way they keep rolling out improvements via firmware updates it just keeps geting better. The R3 looks amazing but I think I will stick with the R5 and wait for the R1. I believe that will be a excellent combination able to do it all whether it is high end portrait/fashion work, wildlife, sport, journalism and everything in between.
The best comparison between these two cameras I’ve seen. Thank you!. I use the R5 with the 100-500 combination for birding and landscapes. I rarely use the video. Totally agree with the low light focus issues and the locking on the background. High megapixel is a must for me given the extensive cropping on most images. I’ll stay with the R5 and will consider the next iteration of the R5.
A helpful comparison, thanks. My preferred birding camera is my R7 with RF 100-500, for its combination of reach and resolution. Because I find configuring the R5 more like the R7, I chose the R5 as my second body, and I find I can switch easily between them. They are clearly not identical, but close enough, at least conceptually. For me, this recommended the R5.
I had a brand new R5 and on first day out it froze twice taking 300 photographs! I had to switch camera off and on but froze again after 3 shots. Camera body very warm. I returned the camera and got a R3 and no issues with R3. Really fast eye tracking and the photos are stunning with lots of detail. Using R3 with RF 100m-500mm lens and easy to hand hold
I have an R5, mostly for out in the field bird photography & video. Your review (much appreciated) confirms for me that I’ll wait for a higher (45Mp or so) enabling 8k video capability, allowing the sometimes significant cropping I need in far-away bird videos, which my R5 & Premiere Pro allow. I haven’t run up any overheating experiences with the R5 in the (still) temperate climate I’m in, fortunately.
Thanks Jan! I really did enjoy this video. I shoot with the R5 after "upgrading" from the R6 in March. I mainly shoot birds. I really.don't care about video. At times, I'll shoot a 15 second clip to record a bird singing or calling. I watched one of your previous videos that taught me to save the settings to C3. Now I just hit the red record button to get my short clip. I think overall that the R3 would just be too much camera for me technically, plus the size. One thing you didn't mention for consideration was the price difference between the two cameras. I would think that many of us, even though we might want the more expensive camera with the additional features, just can't swing it because of the cost. We make it work with what we can afford. As always, another great review.
Videos like this are why I subscribed. I’m lucky enough to have both cameras and appreciate your diving into it like this. I really appreciated the thoughts on low-light photography, as I have not had the chance to do that yet. A bit beyond the scope of this video, but the R3 is also superb for aviation photography. And for me at least the eye control focus is go-to for taking pictures of jets.
YESSS! I needed this comment. I'm between the R3 and R5. I shoot a lot of aviation/car racing pictures. I love all the features of the R3, but that MP/cropping ability of the R5 has me burning too many brain cells. I so want to make a strong case for 20ish MP being enough, though... Ugh...
@@clientcentricmassagetherap354, I've used the R3 with he 100-500 at an airshow and to take pictures of airliners on approach to Dulles and National Airports in the Washington DC area. For aviation, I've found there is plenty of room for cropping. Especially for bigger aircraft.
I find the delay in focussing when using the viewfinder on the r5 very frustrating . I have learnt to keep my finger on the shutter button so I can wake the viewfinder before taking the shot. The time it takes to focus on foreground from background is also very annoying! Thank you, Jan, for such a thorough comparison.
I have used a Canon 1 Dx Mark II for all of my Macaw family photos/videos since 2016. But after watching a video by you on the Canon R6 Mark II, I decided to rent one. Absolutely incredible focusing capabilities and produces amazing 4K video. I do not like the smaller body of the R5, R6, and others, but love the large body of the 1Dx series cameras. I ordered a Canon R3 a few days ago, and it will be delivered today! Thank you for this video and for reinforcing my decision to buy the R3! The new R1 will not have any improvements over the R3 for my photo/video use, so no need for me to buy the R1. The larger 1 Dx body size on the R1 would be better than the R3, but not enough to justify the larger price. You have the best YT channel on photography, thank you again for all your help!
Great comparisons. As usual. I gulped and made the switch to the R5 from the R6 a while back. I find the R5 meets my amateur needs extremely well. I'm sure the R3 would as well. I'm not shooting a lot of video, mostly stills. But, it was a tough thing for me to spring for the R5 and the R3 is just too rich for my blood. For me, the money I spend on photography gear at this point needs to be focused on lenses, computer equipment, trips, etc. I'll just have to suffer through with the R5. :). I'm going to settle in with my R5 and work on skills.
Maybe an ignorant question, but what prompted you to switch from r6 to r5? I'm considering switching to rf finally (from 6d), but as a photographer, what is the extra $1200ish really for? Is there an answer besides megapixels
@@jrbling25 Everyone is different. I'm an amateur gettting back in the game after a long break. I will retire soon. I'm at a point in my life where I have the resources to get what I really want to have to take me to the end. That is my situation. So, for me, I decided that I want to have the megapixels for cropping. Also, the R6 does not have a way to put favorite video settings on a custom C memory setting. Also, on the R5 you can set the camera up so that you can switch from photo to video shooting with the press of a single button. I like that feature. Less important to me but still factors are the superior weather proofing in the R5 and my sense that the R5 might hold value a bit better than the R6 (could be dead wrong on that?). Honestly, I might like to have both. But, right now I am going to try to focus my dollars on becoming a better photographer.
Thanks for all your videos. I have both R3 and R5, and struggled to decide on the R3 based on 24 MP. Canon states their sensor has an equivalent of their 5Div (30MP) based on the new sensor technology. I did extensive testing with both cameras in a test environment and real life. Most of my photography is wildlife so with long lens', ISO tends to be higher most of the time and that is when the R3 produces better images than the R5 from my testing. I think the 24 MP spec is very misleading on the basis of the images I've been capturing when comparing to the R5. I'm very happy with the R3 overall. I now use the R5 mostly for landscape and low ISO pictures.
@@robbrennen4728 I was hoping that even at ISO 1600 there wouldn't be any noticeable difference. I guess I'm gonna have to use software to increase the resolution of the R3 by 1.5x
I traded my R5 together with my R7 for the R3, mostly because of much higher flexibility with higher ISO. I find the pictures coming out of the R3 look pretty natural. Because of less noise in the R3 image i had no issues with upscaling the cropped images as with the R5 and R7 and that was the winning formula for me... I also owned 45MP camera from other brand and did not get the results as with the R3. You can push the R3 over the edge and it delivers very good results - this is the biggest difference to all other existing cameras in the market currently... this is the reason why I'm very careful with high MP gear....
R5 for macro, both video and stills. As you said in your video, the larger sensor makes a huge difference on the editing side! The ability to crop in even further on miniature subjects has been amazing. Great video Jan thanks for sharing!
My R5 has had hot pixel issues. I sent it to Canon for repair, and all they did was clean the sensor, but the issue persists. So, I have since gotten an R3 primarily for video; I'm very impressed with it; what a workhorse the R3 is!
Absolutely great video. Has every bit of information that i could possibly need to know about canon r3 or r5. Very satisfied. Thank you for doing the great work.
Nice video! I spent most of the past year shooting birds with an R6 and using Topaz to upscale the images. I came up with a workflow using Gigapixel in the low resolution mode. Then I would run the resulting file through Topaz Sharpen suing the motion blur mode. Somewhere between 25% to 55%. This results in files that look very nice. I just got an R7 and even though I don’t need extra pixels with it I find that I still am using that workflow occasionally.
I found raw images taken with the R6 and R5 taken at the same time, with the same lenses (RF 85 1.2. basically the sharpest lens Canon makes). I upscaled the R6 in Adobe Camera Raw using the Enhance feature, then output using Adobe Camera Raw to 45 MP. I then overlayed the images over the R5 files. I pixel peeped at 100% on a 5K monitor and guess what? The R6 files looked sharper on most of the files (landscape, outdoor portrait and studio portrait). I then sent these files to a graphic designer buddy (I'm a graphic designer too and photographer for 15 years btw), and didn't label the layers. He picked the R6 files as more detailed in 9 out of 10 photos I sent him. Crazy. The great thing is that the Enhance feature doesn't take that long to run (though the files are massive). Even without using the Enhance feature, when I upscale the output of ACR to 45 MP, it's VERY hard to tell the difference between R5 and R6 files. The lens will make more of a difference than the camera.
16:05 - He said "DxO PureRAW" and that is the name of the software he used to remove the noise... just in case you also had a hard time understanding what he said. 🙂
Hi Jan, I see that first clip was Moran's Falls up at O'Reilly's so you must be a local to me and I love your work, top class, and so glad to have stumbled upon you. I am in the Logan area and being retired love my natural history photography and aren't we so lucky to live in this part of the world!
9:00 yes I am seeing the same problem of AF stuck into background on the R7. Further more, there is this problem of Focused, then Blur, back to Focused for Perched bird. Meaning, the AF would HUNT even for focused bird when you press AF button. This does not happen with DSLR. It would check if image is focused, and if it is, the AF would NOT MOVE. ARE you seeing this on R5 and R3 ?
Great video Jan. This is what I noticed when testing both cameras. I think In this days we are used to see everything On 100% preview and this is our main problem. We see all the problems. When there is 45mpix we see slighty movements and the noise. When seeing a 24mpix file - lack of detail that sometimes is needed, especially when cropping. We shouldnt forget that 5 years ago almost every camera had around 20-30mpix and everything was perfect. I even used to use mraw when shooting with 5d3, 5d4 and now? :).
Great real World comparison. Thanks. Would like to see a similar comparison between the R3 and R7, especially fine detail , AF accuracy , RF and EF lenses, and video.
You basically described the angst of being an engineer - deciding on the trade offs. There is, of course, a year or two of technology difference between the R3 and the R5 but the choices between 24M pixels and 50M pixels and all the things that those two sizes implies I think points to the root of all the trade offs. I use to own (e.g.) the 1D and the 1Ds because one was for landscape and the other was for action. One camera could not do both. Then they started introducing the idea of video and now there are three targets to hit: video, fast action, and high pixel density. I currently have an R5 and an R5C because I want to start seriously exploring video. I’m wondering if I would like the R3 and an R5C combo. … it is something I need to contemplate a bit on.
Great video, thanks. I'm going to switch my main, full-frame body to mirrorless when I replace my 5DIV and you've pretty much explained why I'm not willing to make the move just yet and will carry on just using the R7 as a backup crop sensor body. I don't do video so that's not an issue. At the moment, the R3 is a little light on pixels for me because I photograph a lot of small birds. I was also surprised to see in your video how poorly the files compare with the R5 in terms of fine detail. On the other hand, the R5 doesn't have the stacked sensor that comes with the R3 and the files are 12 bit in electronic shutter (something I hate on my R7 but I can live with it there because that camera is a compromise in many respects). Like you, I'm waiting to see what the R1 will bring (apart from an eye watering price tag!) If it's basically an R3 with 40-50 megapixels, then I will buy it in a heartbeat, but if the rumours of something around 100 megapixels are true, then I'm probably done with Canon after 20-plus years of using their gear, unless they upgrade the R5 to a stacked sensor and fix a few other issues in the meantime. I think 100 megapixels will be very difficult for any kind of action work.
Thanks for the comparison! I've come from a 1DX II to an R5 on launch day and I find that the R5's lack of cross-type AF really hit me in low light. I tend to shoot a lot of event/hospitality/esports images where I am sitting at ISO 12800 and I find my 1DX II images come out far better than even downsized R5 images - I would say the 1DX II has a full stop advantage in these circumstances over the R5, so it's interesting that you've made a similar observation with the R3. Looks like I need to pick up an R3 at some point! If I get better performance out of eye detect AF speed and tracking in low light, then it's going to save me a lot of heartache!
I bought an R3 because I mostly wanted a fast action camera with good low light performance. Because of how many opportunities left me wishing I that was able to capture the moment with less noise. I've hardly ever looked at an image and wished to crop in further, that just tells me I need to be closer next time so I try to think of how. To me cropping tightly feels like cheating, I don't find it rewarding to share an image that is heavily cropped.
Always a pleasure Jan! As wonderful of a camera as the R3 is, particularly for wildlife and sports, it seems like a compromise in other ways. That was the appeal of the R5 for me (besides price), it just did so much well and was so versatile. It’s really been a pleasure to shoot with, but also the most expensive body I have owned.
Nice comparison Jan. I have been using R5 almost a year, the more I use the more problems I discovered. The camera FREEZE is the most annoying issue even with the latest firmware. One day it froze more than 10 times, as soon as I pressed BAF button, it froze. The overheat issue, I set video C3 for 4K 120p, outside temperature 30C, camera is under the sun for a little while then the overheat warning is on. I only shoot stills, no video at all. I recently see the banding issue on ISO 4000 up in dark area when zoom 100%. I don't use e-shutter.
Thank you for the review. That was very interesting (thank you too for showcasing some great Aussie birds!). If I ever upgrade my 1DXii it will be to an R3 or better yet an R1. I'm happy to sacrifice the higher resolution sensor for the better autofocus, EVF, and pro body.
never get tired of your videos, thanks Jan. As expected in the area that matters to me the R3 under deliver which is why even though I waited for the R3 release I opted for the R5 and I have no regret. I'm surprised Canon didn't manage to deliver a R3 with at least a 35MP count or something, now we kinda have to wait for the R1 I guess but I'll stick to my R5 anyway, it's a great camera, I just wished the body was better like the R3, bigger battery, and more button like the 1DX to switch modes and such.. I hate going through menus to change stuff while I could do all that with button press on 1DXII
I’ve seen so many people saying that the R3 should have been like 30-36MP and I just don’t get it. That’s such a negligible amount compared to 24MP, it’s only like 20% more resolution. You could scale an R3 file to that resolution in basically any program with little to no degradation.
@@Kirkland_Signature no the R3 should have been 45 but at least a 35 or so would have smoothed things out. Also 30MP would have been a 25% increase, which is 1/4 more and 36MP would be a 50% increase, that's significant and could have been a good compromise since the R3 brings a lot of good things like better readout speed and such to the table. So yeah the R3 is a weird body to me, it's mostly only for sport (for still I mean), yet the 1DXIII is probably still relevant since you want to use mechanical shutter in many occasion anyway and the MP count is too low compared to bodies like R5 or Alpha 1 to compete for animal photography.. I guess it has its uses, it's simply not for me though
@@seraphin01 I have been doing Wildlife photography with a 1DX2 then a 1DX3 for the last 8 years, finally swapped the 1DX3 for the R3 and I have no regrets, I have never thought I don't have enough pixels, most of the professional I know use the pro bodies with low pixels and they are getting stunning wildlife photos and making a good living out of those bodies, so I am not sure why are people moaning and moaning about pixels, we had beautiful wildlife photos before these high megapixel cameras came along. I am lucky I have the big primes and I try to get close, the trick is don't crop from 2 miles away.
Sorry but your math is incorrect, resolution needs to be multiplied in both dimensions so a 25% increase over the R3’s 24MP would be 37.5MP. If you wanted to double the resolution you effectively have to multiply the resolution times four so in the R3’s case you’d be looking at a 96MP sensor. I own both the R3 and R5 and I can tell you that while the R5’s resolution is nice, there are no shots I’ve taken with that camera that I couldn’t have taken with the R3. I’ve gotten frame-filling shots of Barn Swallows in flight with the R3 and had zero need for more resolution. People act like great photos weren’t possible before 40+ MP sensors and it’s just not true.
15:32 that upscaled photo from the R3 is remarkably good vs the R5 image. The image is much cleaner in terms of noise which helps a lot. I don''t know if that software is removing noise as well as upscaling it
Jan you are da man. Excellent video - I really look forward to your content. Your explanation of - you know- everything (ergonomics, file quality, workflow, video) is superb. We are headed to Alaska for Brown Bears/salmon run in a couple weeks. Shooting 85% video with primarily Canon cinema cameras but bringing a mirrorless for “B” video cam and to grab some stills. Leaning towards the R3 for action and (probably) low light. Really love the video AF on the R3. Thanks as always. And BTW love the tweaks you made to your intro!
In your studies with auto focus (assume servo mode), how stable is the auto focus when using magnification in either camera (R5/R3) on a stationary object while doing continuous focus. I was surprised to see focus hunting (at max magnification with fixed mounting) which could be from power supply noise (battery noise) or noise from image processing. This is probably microscopic in perspective and begs to consider power supply/circuit operation/stability of electronics but can be viewed optically.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Jan, I’m a camera enthusiast currently have a old! Sony A65 which I’m now having issues with. Currently tossing around the idea of either a Canon R5 or a Sony A7iv. I’m an all rounder when it comes to still photos family, kids sports, sunsets but I enjoy my motorsports bikes, cars etc. at 300km/h. I’m starting to lean towards the Canon R5. The more videos I watch and the more I read is heading me that way.
@@finyo83 I have seen files from the R6 and they look amazing, I tried to zoom in on the info at the top, and noticed the file sizes are virtually the same MB not sure how this can be when one is nearly double the pixels.
@@tonyesposito9602 I have to agree my R3 files are very sharp and they upsize amazingly well to size much larger than I would ever print. There is something wrong with that example. The fine detail at pixel level on my R3 is stellar. For me, the speed OVF and AF are significantly better on the R3 than on the R5.
@@CC1028 I have to agree 100% with you, something is going on with that photo, to me it looks like a heat haze problem, I have both cameras and use the R3 a lot more, side by side without pixel peeping I think the R3 has a much cleaner and nicer look, also I found with the R5 I use my DXO noise reduction a lot more, hardly ever put R3 files through it.
Terrific video. I first had the R5 which shoots really beautiful still images, but my main purpose is as a hybrid shooter and the overheating and noise in the R5 video was unacceptable for me. Now i have the R3 and i absolutely love the 6K Raw video without overheating issues and how clean the still images are. Anyways a few more megapixels for stills shooting would be nice so when the R1 comes out it will be a clear buy for me :D
For wildlife and bird photography you have to try the new OM-1 with Olympus 150-400 f4.5.I moved from Sony a1 just for this lens, no system letting you to take handheld photos with the 1000mm-2000mm range like the OM System.It is not perfect but the optic quality if it is not better than the Sony 600mm f4 GM it is same quality.
I have hired the R5 & found I am unable to switch the rear screen on with a button, & comes on when you take your eye from the view finder. Is the R3 set like this has well. The only work around I have found is reconfigure the record button to put screen to sleep 💤
This video helps quite a bit. I'm strictly amateur, but the R3 seems to be a better fit. I photograph quite a bit of wildlife action with a Canon 5D MIII. I can see the advantages of more megapixels, but the higher frame rate will probably result in more keepers. I also shoot night photos, so the better low light performance should help greatly. Thank you for your perspective.
Well done and great points. I really would like to wait for he R5 Mk2 but I think I am going to go with R6 Mk2 for upgrade from R7. Any thoughts? I can not handle the R5 30 min record limit.
Excellent comparison. It allows viewers to think about the type of photography they do and make informed decisions about which (or both) camera best suits their needs. My experience with the R5 has been much like you describe. I love the image quality, autofocus capability, stabilization and ergonomics. I rarely do video so its limitations there are not a concern for me. I live in a hot and humid environment (coastal South Carolina in the US) but have never had an overheating warning when taking stills, even when repeatedly using high FPS for birds in flight in the heat of the summer. For me, it has been a first-rate camera. I looked at the R3 but was hesitant due to the lower resolution. Your comparison of the image quality was very helpful. Thanks for this terrific video.
I think the “problem” we have these days are that the cameras offered by the major brands are all so good that it comes down to shooting style and personal preference. I have both the R3 and R5 and for me the clear choice for birds and wildlife in general is the R3 (for more reasons than you care to read). If you fish, the following might make some sense. In my estimation the R5 is a bait caster, the R3 is a bamboo fly rod. Both good at what they do but made for different purposes. I’ll take the fly rod.
Hi, I'd like to refer to your video from 9:00 minute onwards, you've mentioned a clear difference in autofocus between the two cameras. In your opinion, do you think that hitting a back button focus on the R5 will help shake up the autofocus into focusing accurately? Or you were already doing it but it isn't as reliable at times?
Great review Jan, I use an R5 for bird photography hardly ever use video or photograph in very low light, so it is the R5 for me, keep the reviews coming. Ian.
Excellent video as ever Jan. I have both and completely agree with your conclusions. The R3 excels for fast action (motorsport for me) and low light (especially indoors with no flash). Other than that, for stills, I always reach for the R5; the files are beautiful. I don’t take much video, but have found both great (not much overheating in the UK & my clips are usually short). If I’m travelling and need to be light, I won’t hesitate to leave the R3 at home. The R5/100-500 combo is excellent for this. For ultimate wildlife, I use the R5 and EF600 (II) - the wife won’t let me upgrade yet & the IQ I get from that combo is superb in any event. Unless you’re a pro, you’d really struggle justify the expense of an upgrade to the RF600. I’ve adopted your back button set up and after some initial struggles, am now a firm convert - many thanks!
Jan, another great and fair review. I went with the R3 as I often shoot (sports) action, and not solely wildlife / birds. I also do some flash work too and have a longer prime lenses when reach is required, although not an RF 600 (yet!). As a retired / amateur I enjoy the shooting process most of all, and for me a good quality 9 MP file is fine to print to A3 size and frame for my wall.
Thanks Jan, good review of both cameras. I really wish Canon had given us a few more megapixels in the R3...I really like this camera and use it more often than the R5 but I often regret not having more pixels to play with especially for small distant birds. Oh well start saving for the R1 I guess.
For my personal use case it has advantages over the R5C. For instance I can switch between photo and video in an instant which you can’t on the R5c and it has ibis which I need. Never used C70
I’m a Canon shooter coming from the 1DX series of cameras. Like many photographers I was hoping that the Canon EOS R3 would have 45MP and was thoroughly disappointed when it was revealed to be 24MP. It is true that the R3 has one of the best autofocus systems out there. But suddenly Nikon comes out with the 45MP Zp which has a pro body and is built like a tank. But it’s autofocusing system is pretty good but not up to the same level as the Canon R3. Should I wait for the rumored Canon R1 or switch to Nikon and get the Z9? I currently don’t have a camera having sold everything. I’m a portrait shooter who likes a camera that has a pro build.
If R3 had of been at least 32MP I might have bought back into Canon. It's a Sony A9 competitor at A1/Z9 prices with half the pixels. If it were $4999US or $7KAU it would be a lot more palatable. If Sony keeps the A9III price under $5K R3 will look even more ordinary value wise. The trouble is also A1 on sale is cheaper than R3 now.
Really helpful Jan. Thanks. Having just sold my 5DIV, I’m tempted by the R5 . The R7 is more in my budget, however, and is an action sports upgrade from the MkIV so although not the best, it will be an improvement in AF and reach.
I shoot commercial surfing and lifesaving carnivals etc. I stopped using the R5 because of the small buffer. Have gone back to the 5D IV's because R5 45mp is just too big for sports, slowing down writes and using more buffer space. I have been looking at the R3 and have used one at a few carnivals, very difficult to fill the buffer and no blackout. I'm not convinced the R3 mp count is high enough to allow some cropping although the auto-focus us amazing, keeping tack sharp focus on an eye through water spray. I have been hoping for an R3 II with a 30+mp sensor but I can't see it coming in 2023. I'm using the 300mm f2.8 II with 1.4x multiplier, this give me a better weight combo than a 400 f2.8 to handhold for an entire day. The R1 I'm sure will solve my issue, although selling my house to buy one will be a tough decision.
The R5/6 can also start tracking where the AF point is, but I suppose the difference to the R3 is that it sticks to the "object" if it can't find an eye in the area? I noticed my R6 jumping to a different person if it fails to find the eye at the location of the AF point.
Bought the R5 yesterday. Got it set up and tried it out today on some sea gulls. Main issue is the start up lag time of the electronic viewfinder. What I mean is when you quickly raise the camera to shoot something, there is such a delay in the viewfinder coming to life that you miss the shot. So, let's say you're shooting sports and moving to another spot or just not much happening in front of you. Then you see something about to come into play. You quickly raise the camera to your eye and all you see is black for a split second until it lights up. But in that split second, you missed the shot. In shooting my 1DX or any DSLR, this is never a problem. Very frustrating. It doesn't look like you can keep the viewfinder on either. Not that I would want to because of battery drain. Now what?
So no comment :-) excellent video thanks Jan. I like all your details and helps me for now being very glad having a R5 and the C70. ;-) Like very much too that you clearly give a no nonsense opinion about the details like image quality. Greetings from the Netherlands again. Onno.
I really liked your video. I have the R5 and shoot Bird Photography and Weddings/Events. The image quality for fine detail in Wedding Dresses and small birds is excellent. The autofocus is why I sold my 7D II. For what I do the R5 is a better choice than the R3. Waiting for the R1 to replace the 5D IV I use for backup and flip it with the R5
Great videos you have. I have 1R5 body and 1R3 body. I am using it together with 600 mm Rf glas,and 1-500 mm Rf. What i am hoping,is it possible you could make a video of settings on R3 for Birds and Birds in flight? Then mostly for stills,and settings for autofocus.
Thanks for this detailed comparison based on experience in the field. I have the R5 and am considering the R7 as a second body. I just wish the control points were more similar on the R7. The R3 would be total overkill for my uses.
Some of those 'differences' are either software bugs in R5/R6 or purposefully crippling the camera. Soon will find out in the coming updates if Canon fixes the focus hunting and some other problems with the R5/6 or leave them there to laugh at its clients. Like the missing 'Save Settings' on the R6.
Great comparison and all good points. Your thoughts on using the internal 1.6 crop on r5 in situations where small images would result in cropping full frame to the 1.6 image size. I note a faster more accurate focus with the larger 1.6 cropped image in the viewfinder. Any negatives to this use besides being over cropped if a larger subject occurs?
Wondering if the battery grip for the R5 enables it to power both focus motors for the 600 RF F4? I use a FX Lion external battery, but I am tired of the cord.
With the question at the end of the video, I don't have an R5 or R3 and im currently happy with my Sony kit, yet I still watch these videos because i'm still learning something no matter the camera brand :) also helps me with ideas for a future camera purchase, which will be at least a few years from now.
Good video once again. I have done some crazy things with my camera gear in the past 4 months. For one I sold 99% of my Nikon DSLR camera gear. I purchased a Canon R6 but found as good as the camera is it did not give me the WOW factor I was looking for. I upgraded to a R5 with the 100-500, 24-105 and the 70-200, f/4. I wanted the 70-200, f/2.8 but gosh those fast RF lenses are priced out of sight for this retiree. I have since repurchased my Nikon D810 and the D4s. I enjoy the R5 for birding and almost everything so far. The D810 I will use mainly for portraits indoors and just to change things up a bit. My favorite is the lowly 16MP Nikon D4s. If I have to absolutely get the shot the first time or if the weather is bad or I am in the woods, on the street I will take the beast, D4s. I am now rebuilding my collection of Nikon F mount glass. Fast glass, used but in near like used condition and at 1/3 the price of Canon RF, L, lenses. I am liking the R5 more and more but the FR glass is too expensive and for MY needs I should have kept my 12 F mount lenses or some of them and maybe bought a D850 and a Z7II. I guess I am a slow learner at 70. I know the newest and greatest tech cameras are wonderful but the final product for my needs is sometimes made with the older and more reliable cameras. The R5 is the best camera over all that I will ever need and then some. I have no interest in a R3. Your videos are awesome.
This was a very thorough and comprehensive review. I learned a lot about both my R5 and R3. As for me, I’m selling my second R5 and grabbing a second R3. I shoot weddings and events and the lowlight is unbelievable.
beautiful video shots here, Jan. How do you achieve the bokeh @19:54 without overexposing? If I shoot video at 2.8 and the 180 rule, I unfortunately blow out the highlights even at the lowest ISO. 🙁
I'm mainly shooting sports these days. so the R3 really looks interesting to me. I'll wait until the price is down on the used market, or perhaps see what the R1 looks like. for family trips, the additional MP would be nice. but if the R1 is $10k, I could get an R3 and an R5 for the same price! As just a hobbyist, this is a bucket list type of purchase for me. a major frivality. An R5 mark 2 with a stacked sensor may be perfect for me. if it ever happens.
Your dream R5 mark 2 will never come with a stacked sensor cause it will literally kill the coming R1 which won't be less than 8k$. Your solution is already out though if you can stand the inconvenience of the brand switch. Either Nikon Z9 or Sony A1.
@@networm64 At some point stacked sensors will move down the hill, so to speak, to the middle priced products like the R5. Whether that is one or two generations away, only time will tell. Nikon may be the first to do it, with a stacked sensor already at the $5500 price point. Who knows. I can't afford the probably $10k it would cost me to switch my lenses over to another system, so switching is out.
I went from the A7RIV over the a7IV to the A1, and have to say for me personally, the higher megapixel bodies are absolutely essential for small birds in flight.
I agree - moved from the A7III/A9 to the A1 - not only is the crop you can get great but like Jan highlighted the detail and image quality is also so much better, I just love it!
And as an added bonus Sony don't charge nearly $5K for their 200-600. Canon's RF lens pricing is a major reason I abandoned Canon after 25 years. Sony 200-600, more reach, faster and half the price. I wouldn't pay more than $2K for the 100-500L, for the money they want it needed to be f/5.6 and have no restrictions on the use of TC's.
@@SouthAfricanWanderer I own Nikon and Sony, I pick and choose best lens for each system. I have Nikon 500 PF and will get the 800 PF next year. But I have Sony 100-400 and 200-600. Still using A9 but will see my A9 and A7RIII to fund an A1 also next year. I might swap my 500 PF for the 400 f/4.5, but as a birder 400mm is bare minimum FL so would need the 1.4x TC in place most times. I want Sony and Nikon to release a 600 f/5.6. I don't have the desire or funds to buy a massive 600 f/4 which are $20K in Australia. Nikon has shown it could do a 600 f/5.6 probably for about $4.5-5KUS. f/5.,6 is the new f/4!
Very interesting how "flat" the R3 files look (although that ISO is insane! I was happy in a way that the R3 was only 24mp.....because I couldn't afford one anyway :D (And yes, the placement of the R5 battery grip joystick is ridiculous! I have missed many images because of it!!!)
I’ve had the exact opposite experience, since owning the R3 I’ve barely used the R5 and it’s really only come out in situations where I can take my time and set up. The R3 is just a workhorse and it really feels like there’s no limit to what you can do with it while with the R5 there’s things like rolling shutter that you have to be mindful of. Sure the R5 has more resolution but 90% of the time we’re posting stuff to Instagram at 1080px wide and honestly, the lower resolution pushes me to be a better photographer because I have to get closer to the subject.
Not to mention the dynamic range improvements on the R3. The camera definitely does resolve higher than a 24mp.
My thoughts exactly, I have both and since buying the R3 I havent used my R5.. But I do get close to my subject via hides and the like.. The 1DX cameras of the last 10 years have barely gotten over 20 MP in there time and have been the workhorse of many bird and wildlife photographers.. Not sure why we say 'ONLY' 24 MP!! Its plenty.. after all most of our imagery only ends up on social media and printing to say A3 only requires 10 MP...
@@GazFoto me three 🙂 I went from the DX2 to DX3 and now R3 and never been limited by pixels, not sure why there is this huge obsession with high pixel cameras, my R5 hardly gets used since the R3 came along.
Never been a fan of huge crops, and all that detail is only seen in processing when pixel peeping, most social media and web all that detail is not visible, you would be hard pushed to see the difference in most cameras.
The other thing I don't understand is our eyes don't actually see all that fine feather detail, why do we need to see it enlarged in a photo?
@@tonyesposito9602 Couldn't agree more, I dont expect anyone could look at a picture and tell you what camera was used, certainly not in the places we view images today, social media, web etc... Think we get to obsessed with gear in some ways..!!
@@tonyesposito9602 I agree also. I own the R6 and use it with my EF 600mm II lens. Even with the 2x extender the resolution is so good. Definitely much improved over my 1DX that I quickly sold once I went mirrorless. For me, although I haven’t used an R5, I honestly think the smaller file sizes and (arguably better) low light performance of the R6 is perfect since I don’t crop much either. I haven’t experimented with heavy crops with a 45mp camera. If the files look as if they weren’t cropped at all, that would be an advantage, but I never try to look at it from the crop later perspective. The R3 would be a great camera, I just ran out of money haha
I have an R3, and I live in an area that is frequently overcast and where photography in dim forests is common. The low light performance of the camera is exactly why I got it, and I've been very pleased with that decision. I do think about getting an R5 sometimes as a second body, but I think for me the R3 is best as a main body.
Go for the R5 if you want better image quality....R3 should be a back up camera. IMO
Hi Jan, I love your videos. From here at around 8:00 (and other pro reviews are similar) I think you may have missed that the R5 can in fact do what you claim is new to the R3 - initiate tracking at a point or limited area that you specify.
I set up both R5 & R3 functionally identically with triple back-button focus, but the setup method is slightly different. Let's call the 3 back buttons from left-to-right BB1 (AF-ON button), BB2 (*), BB3 (AF point). I have the main AF mode initiated by BB1 usually set to Spot-AF, with BB2 and BB3 initiating tracking-AF in two different modes. ( Doing it your way around with BB1 set to tracking-AF disables the Magnify button. For a still subject I like to be able to magnify to manually fine tune focus. )
On the R5, the next thing you need to do is go to menu AF5.1 "Initial Servo AF pt for tracking". Select the second option - this tells the camera to initiate tracking AF at the point/area you last specified in a non-tracking AF mode like Spot-AF. In other words, if there are multiple possible faces/eyes in frame, it will try to initiate tracking at or close to wherever you were pointing the Spot-AF box. Now go to Customize Buttons, and set BB2 (the * button) to "Metering & AF start", and in the Detail Set specify AF method = Tracking. Set BB3 (the AF point button) to "Eye Detection AF". I discovered by trial and error that if you set it up this way, BB2 will respect the setting in menu AF5.1 and initiate tracking at wherever you were pointing Spot-AF using BB1. But BB3 will ignore the setting in menu AF5.1. BB3 will ignore where you were pointing Spot-AF using BB1, instead it will use AUTO tracking-AF initiation to evaluate the whole screen to choose what it thinks is the subject. You can prove this difference in behavior if you have a wall poster or something with multiple faces. Position one face in the center and one on the edge of the frame. Use BB1 to point Spot-AF at the face on the edge of the frame. BB2 with start tracking the face on the edge, whereas BB3 will ignore your Spot-AF point and prefer the face in the middle of the frame.
So shooting wildlife goes as follows: usually I'm starting with BB1 and first directing Spot-AF at the subject I want to track. Then I go to BB2, and tracking-AF initiates from I where I was pointing Spot-AF. This reliably starts tracking exactly what I want it to track, even if the image is complex or there are multiple possible targets. However, if things are moving very quickly and I don't have time to pick out my subject, I will just go straight to BB3 and let the software pick out what it thinks is the subject from the whole screen. I would use BB3 for a bird returning to a perch that I want the tracking-AF to jump to when it comes in frame, or for a bird that I expect to lift from behind ground cover where I cannot first pick it out with Spot-AF on the ground.
Setup on the R3 is similar, but the menu AF5.1 has disappeared. Instead, in Customize Buttons when you set BB2 (* button) to "Metering & AF start", the Detail Set allows you to specify Tracking-AF and also the AF area. If you specify anything other than Whole Area, Tracking-AF will initiate using a spot or an area that is centered on wherever you were last pointing the focus in a non-tracking AF mode. For BB3 (the AF point button) you do the same as the R5, select Eye Detection AF. This has no Detail Set, it will always use Whole Area. This then gives you a triple back-button focus arrangement that replicates what I described for the R5.
The advantages of R3 over R5 are enormous but my R5 and RF 100-500mm cost $600 more than just the body of the R3. I don't do action photography and as you illustrated, cropping in on a small bird like Goldfinch or Bunting still ends up being very good. Coming from 7D2 straight to R5, there are no complains when using the R5. I appreciate your work as always❤️😍
I can’t justify an R3 while knowing an R1 is coming which will blow both out of the water. These camera companies have “money milking” down to a science and I think I’ll wait a year or two before I move from the R5.
@@KruiserIV are we really gonna have a global shutter? That sounds crazy and exciting
I own the R3 and so wished I got the R 5 before I dropped $6K on it, I don't care about features, bells and whistles, it all bold down to image quality because that is what the client cares about. And it is hard to compete with image quality with another photographer shooting the same things with the R5....clients are going to buy that level of quality over the R3's measly 24 pixels...I mean the R5 blows the R3 away with image quality. Wish I could return my R3, it cost twice as much as the R5. I considered trading it for an R5
@@HollywoodConnection-jast "It's kind of hard to compete on image quality when another photographer is shooting the same thing with an R5..."
Maybe that's the problem?
It's kind of like the difference between a 1080p and a 4k television. It's not the resolution of the TV I am watching! It's what's playing on the TV I am watching!
I like the video. I rarely shoot video. For Bird Photography I love the R5. The large files give great image quality when cropping small birds. If I shot sports I think the R5 might be better. I also shoot events and again the R5 is excellent.
This was an awesome review and real-life comparison. Scientific, yet easy to understand. I'm surprised that you don't have more subscribers, considering the content and production quality, not to mention the amazing bird photos and videos.
Yes, Jan definitely deserves more followers but he'll get there. He's putting forth the kind of content that will hopefully accelerate him faster. I don't even shoot BIF or wildlife (recently retired news media photographer) but I'm very appreciative of his analysis and, of course, the beauty of his work.
Thank you! Let's spread the word then :D
The knowledge and ease of understanding is there. He just doesn’t have the personality that can add to the entertainment factor. He’s a brilliant teacher but he doesn’t hold your attention like a Peter M. or Jared P.
@@edwinclark1493 I understand why many (I guess, most) people prefer the jazzy style and frequent interruptions with video flairs of those other youtubers, but my preference is for a no-nonsense approach. I appreciate the plain-spoken, almost academic, delivery.
I use the R5 and have zero complaints. A couple of tweaks here and there would be nice but not essential plus the way they keep rolling out improvements via firmware updates it just keeps geting better.
The R3 looks amazing but I think I will stick with the R5 and wait for the R1. I believe that will be a excellent combination able to do it all whether it is high end portrait/fashion work, wildlife, sport, journalism and everything in between.
The best comparison between these two cameras I’ve seen. Thank you!. I use the R5 with the 100-500 combination for birding and landscapes. I rarely use the video. Totally agree with the low light focus issues and the locking on the background. High megapixel is a must for me given the extensive cropping on most images. I’ll stay with the R5 and will consider the next iteration of the R5.
A helpful comparison, thanks. My preferred birding camera is my R7 with RF 100-500, for its combination of reach and resolution. Because I find configuring the R5 more like the R7, I chose the R5 as my second body, and I find I can switch easily between them. They are clearly not identical, but close enough, at least conceptually. For me, this recommended the R5.
I had a brand new R5 and on first day out it froze twice taking 300 photographs! I had to switch camera off and on but froze again after 3 shots. Camera body very warm. I returned the camera and got a R3 and no issues with R3. Really fast eye tracking and the photos are stunning with lots of detail. Using R3 with RF 100m-500mm lens and easy to hand hold
the r5 never made any problems in my hands...and i use it very intensivly every day...strange
It's strange that you say that you get lots of details from your R3, when the vlogger says the opposite about the R3????
I have an R5, mostly for out in the field bird photography & video. Your review (much appreciated) confirms for me that I’ll wait for a higher (45Mp or so) enabling 8k video capability, allowing the sometimes significant cropping I need in far-away bird videos, which my R5 & Premiere Pro allow. I haven’t run up any overheating experiences with the R5 in the (still) temperate climate I’m in, fortunately.
Thank you so much Jan for the very informative and comprehensive comparison video! Good luck and keep creating!
Great video, you made some very compelling points for both cameras, so i went and got both. Keep up the great work, its appreciated.
Thanks Jan! I really did enjoy this video. I shoot with the R5 after "upgrading" from the R6 in March. I mainly shoot birds. I really.don't care about video. At times, I'll shoot a 15 second clip to record a bird singing or calling. I watched one of your previous videos that taught me to save the settings to C3. Now I just hit the red record button to get my short clip. I think overall that the R3 would just be too much camera for me technically, plus the size. One thing you didn't mention for consideration was the price difference between the two cameras. I would think that many of us, even though we might want the more expensive camera with the additional features, just can't swing it because of the cost. We make it work with what we can afford. As always, another great review.
Videos like this are why I subscribed. I’m lucky enough to have both cameras and appreciate your diving into it like this. I really appreciated the thoughts on low-light photography, as I have not had the chance to do that yet.
A bit beyond the scope of this video, but the R3 is also superb for aviation photography. And for me at least the eye control focus is go-to for taking pictures of jets.
Awesome! Thank you!
YESSS! I needed this comment. I'm between the R3 and R5. I shoot a lot of aviation/car racing pictures. I love all the features of the R3, but that MP/cropping ability of the R5 has me burning too many brain cells. I so want to make a strong case for 20ish MP being enough, though... Ugh...
@@clientcentricmassagetherap354, I've used the R3 with he 100-500 at an airshow and to take pictures of airliners on approach to Dulles and National Airports in the Washington DC area. For aviation, I've found there is plenty of room for cropping. Especially for bigger aircraft.
I find the delay in focussing when using the viewfinder on the r5 very frustrating . I have learnt to keep my finger on the shutter button so I can wake the viewfinder before taking the shot. The time it takes to focus on foreground from background is also very annoying! Thank you, Jan, for such a thorough comparison.
Sounds like you need to tweak your settings.
Thanks guys!
I have used a Canon 1 Dx Mark II for all of my Macaw family photos/videos since 2016. But after watching a video by you on the Canon R6 Mark II, I decided to rent one. Absolutely incredible focusing capabilities and produces amazing 4K video. I do not like the smaller body of the R5, R6, and others, but love the large body of the 1Dx series cameras. I ordered a Canon R3 a few days ago, and it will be delivered today! Thank you for this video and for reinforcing my decision to buy the R3! The new R1 will not have any improvements over the R3 for my photo/video use, so no need for me to buy the R1. The larger 1 Dx body size on the R1 would be better than the R3, but not enough to justify the larger price. You have the best YT channel on photography, thank you again for all your help!
Great comparisons. As usual. I gulped and made the switch to the R5 from the R6 a while back. I find the R5 meets my amateur needs extremely well. I'm sure the R3 would as well. I'm not shooting a lot of video, mostly stills. But, it was a tough thing for me to spring for the R5 and the R3 is just too rich for my blood. For me, the money I spend on photography gear at this point needs to be focused on lenses, computer equipment, trips, etc. I'll just have to suffer through with the R5. :). I'm going to settle in with my R5 and work on skills.
Maybe an ignorant question, but what prompted you to switch from r6 to r5? I'm considering switching to rf finally (from 6d), but as a photographer, what is the extra $1200ish really for? Is there an answer besides megapixels
@@jrbling25 Everyone is different. I'm an amateur gettting back in the game after a long break. I will retire soon. I'm at a point in my life where I have the resources to get what I really want to have to take me to the end. That is my situation. So, for me, I decided that I want to have the megapixels for cropping. Also, the R6 does not have a way to put favorite video settings on a custom C memory setting. Also, on the R5 you can set the camera up so that you can switch from photo to video shooting with the press of a single button. I like that feature. Less important to me but still factors are the superior weather proofing in the R5 and my sense that the R5 might hold value a bit better than the R6 (could be dead wrong on that?). Honestly, I might like to have both. But, right now I am going to try to focus my dollars on becoming a better photographer.
Thanks for sharing
Thanks for all your videos. I have both R3 and R5, and struggled to decide on the R3 based on 24 MP. Canon states their sensor has an equivalent of their 5Div (30MP) based on the new sensor technology. I did extensive testing with both cameras in a test environment and real life. Most of my photography is wildlife so with long lens', ISO tends to be higher most of the time and that is when the R3 produces better images than the R5 from my testing. I think the 24 MP spec is very misleading on the basis of the images I've been capturing when comparing to the R5. I'm very happy with the R3 overall. I now use the R5 mostly for landscape and low ISO pictures.
Have you shot Fuji GFX 100S and GF glass?
@@KruiserIV No, but have looked the product.
You failed to mention how the 30MP resolution of the 5DMKIV compares to the 24MP resolution of the R3?????
@@FART-REPELLENT Very similar and hard to tell apart on low noise shots. Anything above ISO 100 and R3 steps ahead.
@@robbrennen4728 I was hoping that even at ISO 1600 there wouldn't be any noticeable difference. I guess I'm gonna have to use software to increase the resolution of the R3 by 1.5x
I traded my R5 together with my R7 for the R3, mostly because of much higher flexibility with higher ISO. I find the pictures coming out of the R3 look pretty natural. Because of less noise in the R3 image i had no issues with upscaling the cropped images as with the R5 and R7 and that was the winning formula for me... I also owned 45MP camera from other brand and did not get the results as with the R3. You can push the R3 over the edge and it delivers very good results - this is the biggest difference to all other existing cameras in the market currently... this is the reason why I'm very careful with high MP gear....
R5 for macro, both video and stills.
As you said in your video, the larger sensor makes a huge difference on the editing side! The ability to crop in even further on miniature subjects has been amazing. Great video Jan thanks for sharing!
Thank you!
My R5 has had hot pixel issues. I sent it to Canon for repair, and all they did was clean the sensor, but the issue persists. So, I have since gotten an R3 primarily for video; I'm very impressed with it; what a workhorse the R3 is!
The best side by side review I have watched on RUclips - and I watched many. Well done!
Great!
Absolutely great video. Has every bit of information that i could possibly need to know about canon r3 or r5. Very satisfied. Thank you for doing the great work.
Nice video! I spent most of the past year shooting birds with an R6 and using Topaz to upscale the images. I came up with a workflow using Gigapixel in the low resolution mode. Then I would run the resulting file through Topaz Sharpen suing the motion blur mode. Somewhere between 25% to 55%. This results in files that look very nice. I just got an R7 and even though I don’t need extra pixels with it I find that I still am using that workflow occasionally.
I found raw images taken with the R6 and R5 taken at the same time, with the same lenses (RF 85 1.2. basically the sharpest lens Canon makes). I upscaled the R6 in Adobe Camera Raw using the Enhance feature, then output using Adobe Camera Raw to 45 MP. I then overlayed the images over the R5 files. I pixel peeped at 100% on a 5K monitor and guess what? The R6 files looked sharper on most of the files (landscape, outdoor portrait and studio portrait).
I then sent these files to a graphic designer buddy (I'm a graphic designer too and photographer for 15 years btw), and didn't label the layers. He picked the R6 files as more detailed in 9 out of 10 photos I sent him. Crazy.
The great thing is that the Enhance feature doesn't take that long to run (though the files are massive). Even without using the Enhance feature, when I upscale the output of ACR to 45 MP, it's VERY hard to tell the difference between R5 and R6 files. The lens will make more of a difference than the camera.
16:05 - He said "DxO PureRAW" and that is the name of the software he used to remove the noise... just in case you also had a hard time understanding what he said. 🙂
Hi Jan, I see that first clip was Moran's Falls up at O'Reilly's so you must be a local to me and I love your work, top class, and so glad to have stumbled upon you. I am in the Logan area and being retired love my natural history photography and aren't we so lucky to live in this part of the world!
Yes, Sunny Coast now :)
9:00 yes I am seeing the same problem of AF stuck into background on the R7.
Further more, there is this problem of Focused, then Blur, back to Focused for Perched bird.
Meaning, the AF would HUNT even for focused bird when you press AF button.
This does not happen with DSLR.
It would check if image is focused, and if it is, the AF would NOT MOVE.
ARE you seeing this on R5 and R3 ?
not as much. I did notice a bit of that on the R7
Great video Jan.
This is what I noticed when testing both cameras.
I think In this days we are used to see everything On 100% preview and this is our main problem. We see all the problems. When there is 45mpix we see slighty movements and the noise. When seeing a 24mpix file - lack of detail that sometimes is needed, especially when cropping.
We shouldnt forget that 5 years ago almost every camera had around 20-30mpix and everything was perfect. I even used to use mraw when shooting with 5d3, 5d4 and now? :).
Yes, the problem is not being able to unsee those amazing 50mpix files :D
@@jan_wegener for me from one side the files have more details but sometimes i see that the shutter has to be faster for the same situation
Great real
World comparison. Thanks. Would like to see a similar comparison between the R3 and R7, especially fine detail , AF accuracy , RF and EF lenses, and video.
You basically described the angst of being an engineer - deciding on the trade offs. There is, of course, a year or two of technology difference between the R3 and the R5 but the choices between 24M pixels and 50M pixels and all the things that those two sizes implies I think points to the root of all the trade offs. I use to own (e.g.) the 1D and the 1Ds because one was for landscape and the other was for action. One camera could not do both. Then they started introducing the idea of video and now there are three targets to hit: video, fast action, and high pixel density.
I currently have an R5 and an R5C because I want to start seriously exploring video. I’m wondering if I would like the R3 and an R5C combo. … it is something I need to contemplate a bit on.
Ha, great comment, thanks :)
Great video, thanks. I'm going to switch my main, full-frame body to mirrorless when I replace my 5DIV and you've pretty much explained why I'm not willing to make the move just yet and will carry on just using the R7 as a backup crop sensor body. I don't do video so that's not an issue. At the moment, the R3 is a little light on pixels for me because I photograph a lot of small birds. I was also surprised to see in your video how poorly the files compare with the R5 in terms of fine detail. On the other hand, the R5 doesn't have the stacked sensor that comes with the R3 and the files are 12 bit in electronic shutter (something I hate on my R7 but I can live with it there because that camera is a compromise in many respects). Like you, I'm waiting to see what the R1 will bring (apart from an eye watering price tag!) If it's basically an R3 with 40-50 megapixels, then I will buy it in a heartbeat, but if the rumours of something around 100 megapixels are true, then I'm probably done with Canon after 20-plus years of using their gear, unless they upgrade the R5 to a stacked sensor and fix a few other issues in the meantime. I think 100 megapixels will be very difficult for any kind of action work.
@9:42 thanks for comparing their low-light AF performance, and thanks for this video.
The best review/compare I have seen for R3 vs R5.
Thank you so much
Glad you liked it!
Thanks for the comparison! I've come from a 1DX II to an R5 on launch day and I find that the R5's lack of cross-type AF really hit me in low light. I tend to shoot a lot of event/hospitality/esports images where I am sitting at ISO 12800 and I find my 1DX II images come out far better than even downsized R5 images - I would say the 1DX II has a full stop advantage in these circumstances over the R5, so it's interesting that you've made a similar observation with the R3.
Looks like I need to pick up an R3 at some point! If I get better performance out of eye detect AF speed and tracking in low light, then it's going to save me a lot of heartache!
If you are used to the 1Dx series and don't need the mpix, the R3 will be your preferred camera for sure. It focuses much better in low light
What a wonderful review. Thank you so much.
Great review. I really enjoyed hearing your take on both these cameras. Thank you for sharing! All my best from Michigan, USA.
Awesome, thank you!
I bought an R3 because I mostly wanted a fast action camera with good low light performance. Because of how many opportunities left me wishing I that was able to capture the moment with less noise. I've hardly ever looked at an image and wished to crop in further, that just tells me I need to be closer next time so I try to think of how. To me cropping tightly feels like cheating, I don't find it rewarding to share an image that is heavily cropped.
love this take, completely agree.
Always a pleasure Jan! As wonderful of a camera as the R3 is, particularly for wildlife and sports, it seems like a compromise in other ways. That was the appeal of the R5 for me (besides price), it just did so much well and was so versatile. It’s really been a pleasure to shoot with, but also the most expensive body I have owned.
yep!
I love the combination of my R3 and the R6... Thanks for your wonderful work here
Nice comparison Jan. I have been using R5 almost a year, the more I use the more problems I discovered. The camera FREEZE is the most annoying issue even with the latest firmware. One day it froze more than 10 times, as soon as I pressed BAF button, it froze. The overheat issue, I set video C3 for 4K 120p, outside temperature 30C, camera is under the sun for a little while then the overheat warning is on. I only shoot stills, no video at all. I recently see the banding issue on ISO 4000 up in dark area when zoom 100%. I don't use e-shutter.
It's great, but not perfect
Thank you for the review. That was very interesting (thank you too for showcasing some great Aussie birds!).
If I ever upgrade my 1DXii it will be to an R3 or better yet an R1. I'm happy to sacrifice the higher resolution sensor for the better autofocus, EVF, and pro body.
Amazing review. Clear, concise, and incredibly full of useful information. Thank you for such a great, objective review.
My pleasure!
never get tired of your videos, thanks Jan.
As expected in the area that matters to me the R3 under deliver which is why even though I waited for the R3 release I opted for the R5 and I have no regret. I'm surprised Canon didn't manage to deliver a R3 with at least a 35MP count or something, now we kinda have to wait for the R1 I guess but I'll stick to my R5 anyway, it's a great camera, I just wished the body was better like the R3, bigger battery, and more button like the 1DX to switch modes and such.. I hate going through menus to change stuff while I could do all that with button press on 1DXII
I’ve seen so many people saying that the R3 should have been like 30-36MP and I just don’t get it. That’s such a negligible amount compared to 24MP, it’s only like 20% more resolution. You could scale an R3 file to that resolution in basically any program with little to no degradation.
@@Kirkland_Signature no the R3 should have been 45 but at least a 35 or so would have smoothed things out. Also 30MP would have been a 25% increase, which is 1/4 more and 36MP would be a 50% increase, that's significant and could have been a good compromise since the R3 brings a lot of good things like better readout speed and such to the table.
So yeah the R3 is a weird body to me, it's mostly only for sport (for still I mean), yet the 1DXIII is probably still relevant since you want to use mechanical shutter in many occasion anyway and the MP count is too low compared to bodies like R5 or Alpha 1 to compete for animal photography..
I guess it has its uses, it's simply not for me though
@@seraphin01 I have been doing Wildlife photography with a 1DX2 then a 1DX3 for the last 8 years, finally swapped the 1DX3 for the R3 and I have no regrets, I have never thought I don't have enough pixels, most of the professional I know use the pro bodies with low pixels and they are getting stunning wildlife photos and making a good living out of those bodies, so I am not sure why are people moaning and moaning about pixels, we had beautiful wildlife photos before these high megapixel cameras came along.
I am lucky I have the big primes and I try to get close, the trick is don't crop from 2 miles away.
Sorry but your math is incorrect, resolution needs to be multiplied in both dimensions so a 25% increase over the R3’s 24MP would be 37.5MP. If you wanted to double the resolution you effectively have to multiply the resolution times four so in the R3’s case you’d be looking at a 96MP sensor. I own both the R3 and R5 and I can tell you that while the R5’s resolution is nice, there are no shots I’ve taken with that camera that I couldn’t have taken with the R3. I’ve gotten frame-filling shots of Barn Swallows in flight with the R3 and had zero need for more resolution. People act like great photos weren’t possible before 40+ MP sensors and it’s just not true.
15:32 that upscaled photo from the R3 is remarkably good vs the R5 image. The image is much cleaner in terms of noise which helps a lot. I don''t know if that software is removing noise as well as upscaling it
It does
Many thanks, Jan. For me, this is the best comparison between R3 and R5 on YouToube 🙂. Well done!
My pleasure!
Jan you are da man. Excellent video - I really look forward to your content. Your explanation of - you know- everything (ergonomics, file quality, workflow, video) is superb. We are headed to Alaska for Brown Bears/salmon run in a couple weeks. Shooting 85% video with primarily Canon cinema cameras but bringing a mirrorless for “B” video cam and to grab some stills. Leaning towards the R3 for action and (probably) low light. Really love the video AF on the R3. Thanks as always. And BTW love the tweaks you made to your intro!
Thank you!
Thanks Jan for another brilliant analysis. Do you have a video that shows how you programmed your back buttons or any other short cuts?
ruclips.net/video/-nnRqgXu7QI/видео.html
Many thanks for your prompt response, really appreciated.
In your studies with auto focus (assume servo mode), how stable is the auto focus when using magnification in either camera (R5/R3) on a stationary object while doing continuous focus. I was surprised to see focus hunting (at max magnification with fixed mounting) which could be from power supply noise (battery noise) or noise from image processing. This is probably microscopic in perspective and begs to consider power supply/circuit operation/stability of electronics but can be viewed optically.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Jan, I’m a camera enthusiast currently have a old! Sony A65 which I’m now having issues with. Currently tossing around the idea of either a Canon R5 or a Sony A7iv. I’m an all rounder when it comes to still photos family, kids sports, sunsets but I enjoy my motorsports bikes, cars etc. at 300km/h. I’m starting to lean towards the Canon R5. The more videos I watch and the more I read is heading me that way.
Could there be something going on with the example at 11:16 beyond a megapixel difference between the two cameras? The R3 photo looks very soft.
Exactly my thoughts, my R3 files look nothing like that, even my 20mp DX2 and DX3 looked better.
@@tonyesposito9602 my R6 20 mpixel files don’t look like that either.
@@finyo83 I have seen files from the R6 and they look amazing, I tried to zoom in on the info at the top, and noticed the file sizes are virtually the same MB not sure how this can be when one is nearly double the pixels.
@@tonyesposito9602 I have to agree my R3 files are very sharp and they upsize amazingly well to size much larger than I would ever print. There is something wrong with that example. The fine detail at pixel level on my R3 is stellar. For me, the speed OVF and AF are significantly better on the R3 than on the R5.
@@CC1028 I have to agree 100% with you, something is going on with that photo, to me it looks like a heat haze problem, I have both cameras and use the R3 a lot more, side by side without pixel peeping I think the R3 has a much cleaner and nicer look, also I found with the R5 I use my DXO noise reduction a lot more, hardly ever put R3 files through it.
Happy Sunday! Any chance you can post a Canon R3 setup similar to your excellent Canon R6 Mark II setup video? Thanks!
Terrific video. I first had the R5 which shoots really beautiful still images, but my main purpose is as a hybrid shooter and the overheating and noise in the R5 video was unacceptable for me. Now i have the R3 and i absolutely love the 6K Raw video without overheating issues and how clean the still images are. Anyways a few more megapixels for stills shooting would be nice so when the R1 comes out it will be a clear buy for me :D
The best review I was ever wondering of.... Thanks you bro,,, you got a like and a subscriber....
Awesome, thank you!
For wildlife and bird photography you have to try the new OM-1 with Olympus 150-400 f4.5.I moved from Sony a1 just for this lens, no system letting you to take handheld photos with the 1000mm-2000mm range like the OM System.It is not perfect but the optic quality if it is not better than the Sony 600mm f4 GM it is same quality.
I have hired the R5 & found I am unable to switch the rear screen on with a button, & comes on when you take your eye from the view finder. Is the R3 set like this has well. The only work around I have found is reconfigure the record button to put screen to sleep 💤
This video helps quite a bit. I'm strictly amateur, but the R3 seems to be a better fit. I photograph quite a bit of wildlife action with a Canon 5D MIII. I can see the advantages of more megapixels, but the higher frame rate will probably result in more keepers. I also shoot night photos, so the better low light performance should help greatly. Thank you for your perspective.
Well done and great points. I really would like to wait for he R5 Mk2 but I think I am going to go with R6 Mk2 for upgrade from R7. Any thoughts? I can not handle the R5 30 min record limit.
Excellent comparison. It allows viewers to think about the type of photography they do and make informed decisions about which (or both) camera best suits their needs. My experience with the R5 has been much like you describe. I love the image quality, autofocus capability, stabilization and ergonomics. I rarely do video so its limitations there are not a concern for me. I live in a hot and humid environment (coastal South Carolina in the US) but have never had an overheating warning when taking stills, even when repeatedly using high FPS for birds in flight in the heat of the summer. For me, it has been a first-rate camera. I looked at the R3 but was hesitant due to the lower resolution. Your comparison of the image quality was very helpful. Thanks for this terrific video.
Thanks for sharing!
I think the “problem” we have these days are that the cameras offered by the major brands are all so good that it comes down to shooting style and personal preference. I have both the R3 and R5 and for me the clear choice for birds and wildlife in general is the R3 (for more reasons than you care to read). If you fish, the following might make some sense. In my estimation the R5 is a bait caster, the R3 is a bamboo fly rod. Both good at what they do but made for different purposes. I’ll take the fly rod.
Hi, I'd like to refer to your video from 9:00 minute onwards, you've mentioned a clear difference in autofocus between the two cameras. In your opinion, do you think that hitting a back button focus on the R5 will help shake up the autofocus into focusing accurately? Or you were already doing it but it isn't as reliable at times?
Both camera are basically set up the same with double back button focus
Great review Jan, I use an R5 for bird photography hardly ever use video or photograph in very low light, so it is the R5 for me, keep the reviews coming. Ian.
Excellent and detailed video comparison of these two bodies. Dense with solid info and fair side-by-sided. Learned a lot from this. Thank you!
Great video, Jan. Excellent comparison with fine examples.
Many thanks!
Excellent video as ever Jan. I have both and completely agree with your conclusions. The R3 excels for fast action (motorsport for me) and low light (especially indoors with no flash). Other than that, for stills, I always reach for the R5; the files are beautiful. I don’t take much video, but have found both great (not much overheating in the UK & my clips are usually short). If I’m travelling and need to be light, I won’t hesitate to leave the R3 at home. The R5/100-500 combo is excellent for this. For ultimate wildlife, I use the R5 and EF600 (II) - the wife won’t let me upgrade yet & the IQ I get from that combo is superb in any event. Unless you’re a pro, you’d really struggle justify the expense of an upgrade to the RF600. I’ve adopted your back button set up and after some initial struggles, am now a firm convert - many thanks!
Awesome, thanks for sharing
Jan, another great and fair review. I went with the R3 as I often shoot (sports) action, and not solely wildlife / birds. I also do some flash work too and have a longer prime lenses when reach is required, although not an RF 600 (yet!). As a retired / amateur I enjoy the shooting process most of all, and for me a good quality 9 MP file is fine to print to A3 size and frame for my wall.
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks Jan, good review of both cameras. I really wish Canon had given us a few more megapixels in the R3...I really like this camera and use it more often than the R5 but I often regret not having more pixels to play with especially for small distant birds. Oh well start saving for the R1 I guess.
You and me both!
Great review Jan. You really laid out the differences between these cameras. 😀
Thanks for watching!
thanks a lot for these informations. Super Video. So you can say that in terms of video the R3 is the much better R5C? Maybe even better than the C70?
For my personal use case it has advantages over the R5C. For instance I can switch between photo and video in an instant which you can’t on the R5c and it has ibis which I need.
Never used C70
I’m a Canon shooter coming from the 1DX series of cameras. Like many photographers I was hoping that the Canon EOS R3 would have 45MP and was thoroughly disappointed when it was revealed to be 24MP. It is true that the R3 has one of the best autofocus systems out there. But suddenly Nikon comes out with the 45MP Zp which has a pro body and is built like a tank. But it’s autofocusing system is pretty good but not up to the same level as the Canon R3. Should I wait for the rumored Canon R1 or switch to Nikon and get the Z9? I currently don’t have a camera having sold everything. I’m a portrait shooter who likes a camera that has a pro build.
If R3 had of been at least 32MP I might have bought back into Canon. It's a Sony A9 competitor at A1/Z9 prices with half the pixels. If it were $4999US or $7KAU it would be a lot more palatable. If Sony keeps the A9III price under $5K R3 will look even more ordinary value wise. The trouble is also A1 on sale is cheaper than R3 now.
Really helpful Jan. Thanks. Having just sold my 5DIV, I’m tempted by the R5 . The R7 is more in my budget, however, and is an action sports upgrade from the MkIV so although not the best, it will be an improvement in AF and reach.
I shoot commercial surfing and lifesaving carnivals etc. I stopped using the R5 because of the small buffer. Have gone back to the 5D IV's because R5 45mp is just too big for sports, slowing down writes and using more buffer space. I have been looking at the R3 and have used one at a few carnivals, very difficult to fill the buffer and no blackout. I'm not convinced the R3 mp count is high enough to allow some cropping although the auto-focus us amazing, keeping tack sharp focus on an eye through water spray. I have been hoping for an R3 II with a 30+mp sensor but I can't see it coming in 2023. I'm using the 300mm f2.8 II with 1.4x multiplier, this give me a better weight combo than a 400 f2.8 to handhold for an entire day. The R1 I'm sure will solve my issue, although selling my house to buy one will be a tough decision.
If you use the R5 in cRaw you should have very little if any issues
Jan - have you done a video on how you set up your R3? I can't seem to find it.
Not yet
The R5/6 can also start tracking where the AF point is, but I suppose the difference to the R3 is that it sticks to the "object" if it can't find an eye in the area? I noticed my R6 jumping to a different person if it fails to find the eye at the location of the AF point.
Thank you for another great video. I'll wait for the R1, and keep using my R5 based on your review!
will my canon 300mm F2.8 Mk II work well with the R5? I'm a keen bird photography. Great video Jan - thanks.
It should with the adapater yes
Bought the R5 yesterday. Got it set up and tried it out today on some sea gulls. Main issue is the start up lag time of the electronic viewfinder. What I mean is when you quickly raise the camera to shoot something, there is such a delay in the viewfinder coming to life that you miss the shot. So, let's say you're shooting sports and moving to another spot or just not much happening in front of you. Then you see something about to come into play. You quickly raise the camera to your eye and all you see is black for a split second until it lights up. But in that split second, you missed the shot. In shooting my 1DX or any DSLR, this is never a problem. Very frustrating. It doesn't look like you can keep the viewfinder on either. Not that I would want to because of battery drain. Now what?
set the sleep time to 5 minutes or so and the issue should be gone
And I set the evf turn off to never
So no comment :-) excellent video thanks Jan. I like all your details and helps me for now being very glad having a R5 and the C70. ;-) Like very much too that you clearly give a no nonsense opinion about the details like image quality. Greetings from the Netherlands again. Onno.
I am a pet photographer and I have been using the R6 MK II but I am seriously considering getting the R5, specially now with the discounts.
depends if you need the pixels, otherwise the R6 II is probably the overall more refined camera
Another one of your fantastic videos, always interesting and totally unbiased. Thank you
My pleasure!
I really liked your video. I have the R5 and shoot Bird Photography and Weddings/Events. The image quality for fine detail in Wedding Dresses and small birds is excellent. The autofocus is why I sold my 7D II. For what I do the R5 is a better choice than the R3. Waiting for the R1 to replace the 5D IV I use for backup and flip it with the R5
Great videos you have. I have 1R5 body and 1R3 body. I am using it together with 600 mm Rf glas,and 1-500 mm Rf. What i am hoping,is it possible you could make a video of settings on R3 for Birds and Birds in flight? Then mostly for stills,and settings for autofocus.
Thanks for this detailed comparison based on experience in the field. I have the R5 and am considering the R7 as a second body. I just wish the control points were more similar on the R7. The R3 would be total overkill for my uses.
Some of those 'differences' are either software bugs in R5/R6 or purposefully crippling the camera. Soon will find out in the coming updates if Canon fixes the focus hunting and some other problems with the R5/6 or leave them there to laugh at its clients. Like the missing 'Save Settings' on the R6.
Great comparison and all good points. Your thoughts on using the internal 1.6 crop on r5 in situations where small images would result in cropping full frame to the 1.6 image size. I note a faster more accurate focus with the larger 1.6 cropped image in the viewfinder. Any negatives to this use besides being over cropped if a larger subject occurs?
Just bought R3 camera. This is amazing!! Feels in hands like a real deal, not like a toy)
Enjoy it
Wondering if the battery grip for the R5 enables it to power both focus motors for the 600 RF F4? I use a FX Lion external battery, but I am tired of the cord.
No, only R3 does
Thank you so much.@@jan_wegener
With the question at the end of the video, I don't have an R5 or R3 and im currently happy with my Sony kit, yet I still watch these videos because i'm still learning something no matter the camera brand :) also helps me with ideas for a future camera purchase, which will be at least a few years from now.
Good video once again. I have done some crazy things with my camera gear in the past 4 months. For one I sold 99% of my Nikon DSLR camera gear. I purchased a Canon R6 but found as good as the camera is it did not give me the WOW factor I was looking for. I upgraded to a R5 with the 100-500, 24-105 and the 70-200, f/4. I wanted the 70-200, f/2.8 but gosh those fast RF lenses are priced out of sight for this retiree. I have since repurchased my Nikon D810 and the D4s. I enjoy the R5 for birding and almost everything so far. The D810 I will use mainly for portraits indoors and just to change things up a bit. My favorite is the lowly 16MP Nikon D4s. If I have to absolutely get the shot the first time or if the weather is bad or I am in the woods, on the street I will take the beast, D4s. I am now rebuilding my collection of Nikon F mount glass. Fast glass, used but in near like used condition and at 1/3 the price of Canon RF, L, lenses. I am liking the R5 more and more but the FR glass is too expensive and for MY needs I should have kept my 12 F mount lenses or some of them and maybe bought a D850 and a Z7II. I guess I am a slow learner at 70. I know the newest and greatest tech cameras are wonderful but the final product for my needs is sometimes made with the older and more reliable cameras. The R5 is the best camera over all that I will ever need and then some. I have no interest in a R3. Your videos are awesome.
Thanks for sharing! :)
Informative video - thank-you!
Hope you do a 4 minute vid on today's R3 and R5 FW updates...
Cheers ~
Very thorough and methodical review -- excellent! Thanks much for this info!
This was a very thorough and comprehensive review. I learned a lot about both my R5 and R3.
As for me, I’m selling my second R5 and grabbing a second R3. I shoot weddings and events and the lowlight is unbelievable.
Yes, for that it will be great
Jan, when comparing focus, did you first calibrate both bodies with the same lens?
You don't need micro adjustments anymore on mirrorless cameras
No kidding? I need to upgrade!
beautiful video shots here, Jan. How do you achieve the bokeh @19:54 without overexposing? If I shoot video at 2.8 and the 180 rule, I unfortunately blow out the highlights even at the lowest ISO. 🙁
This was shot in 6k RAW and log, so maximum dynamic range available. The original is almost just light grey and I bring it back when grading
@@jan_wegener Thank you Jan. Did you also use a ND filter when filming?
I'm mainly shooting sports these days. so the R3 really looks interesting to me. I'll wait until the price is down on the used market, or perhaps see what the R1 looks like. for family trips, the additional MP would be nice. but if the R1 is $10k, I could get an R3 and an R5 for the same price! As just a hobbyist, this is a bucket list type of purchase for me. a major frivality.
An R5 mark 2 with a stacked sensor may be perfect for me. if it ever happens.
Your dream R5 mark 2 will never come with a stacked sensor cause it will literally kill the coming R1 which won't be less than 8k$. Your solution is already out though if you can stand the inconvenience of the brand switch. Either Nikon Z9 or Sony A1.
@@networm64 At some point stacked sensors will move down the hill, so to speak, to the middle priced products like the R5. Whether that is one or two generations away, only time will tell. Nikon may be the first to do it, with a stacked sensor already at the $5500 price point. Who knows. I can't afford the probably $10k it would cost me to switch my lenses over to another system, so switching is out.
ich danke Dir für das sehr ausführliche und tolle Video, es hat mir sehr geholfen, weil ich überlege von der 1DX MK II auf die R3 umzusteigen.
Hello! please tell me, does the r6 mark 2 take shoots with a flash with an electronic shutter?
I think only the R3 can
How do you know that the R3 has faster AF on the RF lens? Have you tested the A1 and 600mm f4 vs R3 RF 600mm f4?
I went from the A7RIV over the a7IV to the A1, and have to say for me personally, the higher megapixel bodies are absolutely essential for small birds in flight.
Agreed
I agree - moved from the A7III/A9 to the A1 - not only is the crop you can get great but like Jan highlighted the detail and image quality is also so much better, I just love it!
And as an added bonus Sony don't charge nearly $5K for their 200-600. Canon's RF lens pricing is a major reason I abandoned Canon after 25 years. Sony 200-600, more reach, faster and half the price. I wouldn't pay more than $2K for the 100-500L, for the money they want it needed to be f/5.6 and have no restrictions on the use of TC's.
@@minusinfinity6974 a Sony 400mmF4.5 like Nikons would be sweet though! The manufacturers all have a bit to improve…
@@SouthAfricanWanderer
I own Nikon and Sony, I pick and choose best lens for each system. I have Nikon 500 PF and will get the 800 PF next year. But I have Sony 100-400 and 200-600. Still using A9 but will see my A9 and A7RIII to fund an A1 also next year. I might swap my 500 PF for the 400 f/4.5, but as a birder 400mm is bare minimum FL so would need the 1.4x TC in place most times. I want Sony and Nikon to release a 600 f/5.6. I don't have the desire or funds to buy a massive 600 f/4 which are $20K in Australia. Nikon has shown it could do a 600 f/5.6 probably for about $4.5-5KUS. f/5.,6 is the new f/4!
Very interesting how "flat" the R3 files look (although that ISO is insane! I was happy in a way that the R3 was only 24mp.....because I couldn't afford one anyway :D
(And yes, the placement of the R5 battery grip joystick is ridiculous! I have missed many images because of it!!!)