Close Menu

    Behind The Shot interviews Jeff Cable, to talk about using the EOS R3 in the real world

    By Updated:65 Comments1 Min Read Canon EOS R
    Canon EOS R3

    Steve Brazill from Behind The Shot had a chance to interview our favourite Olympic photographer, Jeff Cable. If you remember, Jeff was one of the most active shooters on the web using the Canon EOS R3 at the Tokyo Games.

    The discussion about the Canon EOS R3 begins around the 9:58 mark, which is where I have queued up on the video.

    Jeff gives us some great insight into Canon's secrecy with pre-release cameras, as well as how the camera performed… A camera he ended up using for 99% of everything he shot at the Olympics. Jeff brought a couple of EOS R5s to shoot with, but the EOS R3 outperformed the EOS R5 for his workflow.

    Connect with Jeff Cable:

    Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    65 comments


    Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/canonr/public_html/wp-content/plugins/article-forum-connect/src/AudentioForumConnect/AudentioForumConnect.php on line 504

    Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/canonr/public_html/wp-content/plugins/article-forum-connect/src/AudentioForumConnect/AudentioForumConnect.php on line 505
    2. What is this "real-world experience" stuff?
      This is the internet where we debate over the opinions of YouTubers who never touched the camera.
      True... I stepped outside of the box. Jeff gives some great and honest insight into Canon and the R3. This is YouTube for grown-ups.
    3. 14 minutes for to choose from 2700 images with downloading, retouching, and sending the files??!! That is insane, only a champ pro can do that. Could an AI system perform remotely close to that currently?
    4. 14 minutes for to choose from 2700 images with downloading, retouching, and sending the files??!! That is insane, only a champ pro can do that. Could an AI system perform remotely close to that currently?
      It’s not that difficult if you rate your images in camera. ;-)
    6. 14 minutes for to choose from 2700 images with downloading, retouching, and sending the files??!! That is insane, only a champ pro can do that. Could an AI system perform remotely close to that currently?
      Photo Mechanic is THE culling and ingesting tool. It is so fast it is ridiculous. You can scan through images nearly as fast as you take them, certainly multiple a second. When you cull high numbers of burst shots you know the compositions and players or moments you are looking for so 80% don't even get a look in for fast delivery. The last 20% can be scanned through for peak action very quickly. EXIF is entered in batches with minimal changes to players names etc. Edits are again basically batch corrections for exposure or lightening shadows and a gentle crop for straightening horizons.

      I can turn around 20 images from a 3,000 shot event in a hour (not the 14 minutes Jeff can but thats why he is successful and I am here) using Lightroom. I can also spend two days processing a single 'hero' shot for a discerning client.
    8. Aah-ha - is that what the 'rate' button is meant to be used for? :):)
      Yes sir. It’s a total life change that can make your image editing go so much faster. NOTHING reads your images faster than your camera. Rate them in your camera during downtime and between sessions before putting them on your computer and trying to sort through all of them in software that’s trying to figure out how to open each massive file one-by-one. Change your magnification to zoom in 100% on the AF point and it makes short work of your processing.
    10. In DPP, I select all of my shots and use quick check, I then press the right arrow key to go through them and then press the X key to mark the bad ones as rejected. This works well for a couple of hundred shots but I couldn't imagine going through 3000.
    11. The angst at EFCS from the host surprised me a bit, I wonder how widespread it is with non-f/1.2 shooters.
      This is the kind of stuff that drives me insane. Rather than simply test it for himself with a camera he personally owns he relies on the uneducated opinions of people who's photos he likes but who doesn't own the camera or even the brand! I was watching a Vannessa Joy video comparing the R5 and R3 and she was convinced the R3 high iso performance was 'better' because she looked at both images at 200% not the same size!

      Stupid influencers....
    12. Yikes, this thread was started 24 hours ago and only 11 comments so far?

      It’s a long video, but I’d urge anyone remotely interested in either the R3 or in sports, action or wildlife photography to take the time to watch and listen.

      Amazing photography and fascinating insights from multi-talented Jeff Cable, and great interviewing by Steve Brazill.
    13. Yikes, this thread was started 24 hours ago and only 11 comments so far?

      It’s a long video, but I’d urge anyone remotely interested in either the R3 or in sports, action or wildlife photography to take the time to watch and listen.

      Amazing photography and fascinating insights from multi-talented Jeff Cable, and great interviewing by Steve Brazill.
      Only 11 comments so far because - as was mentioned earlier - this is real-life experience, so all the "debaters" who have never used the camera nor would ever buy the camera have nothing to say or debate. It's "YouTube for grownups" as Camera Rumors Guy said!

      Plus his comments are very positive towards the camera. He went to the Olympics figuring he would use it some of the time along with his R5, but ended up using it 99% of the time. When asked to compare the R3 and the actual flagship DSLR, he could come up with only one thing he liked better in the 1DX III - the two CF express cards. He considered the R3 and mirrorless essentially better in every other way. His need for fast turnaround only reinforced the reality that most sports shooters are quite happy with 24 MP. So, up against real-life experience, all the whiners would look pretty foolish with their constant negativity.
    15. He went to the Olympics figuring he would use it some of the time along with his R5, but ended up using it 99% of the time. When asked to compare the R3 and the actual flagship DSLR, he could come up with only one thing he liked better in the 1DX III - the two CF express cards. He considered the R3 and mirrorless essentially better in every other way. His need for fast turnaround only reinforced the reality that most sports shooters are quite happy with 24 MP.

      Different photographers have different needs. Everything Jeff Cable said made perfect sense from the point of view of a successful (and reasonably wealthy) professional photographer.

      Professional sports and wildlife photographers will usually have access to ultra-expensive long primes such as 600mm F4 or 800mm F5.6. Combined with their need to process and transmit images rapidly, it makes sense the have a relatively low MP camera.

      But for most amateurs, unless they are very wealthy, the reality is that they can’t afford these long primes - they are generally using shorter and more affordable lenses such as 100-400mm zooms, which necessitate the need for heavier cropping. Also amateurs in most cases just don’t have the close access that a press pass provides. So many would argue that more MP and more cropping is often the only solution.
    16. Different photographers have different needs. Everything Jeff Cable said made perfect sense from the point of view of a successful (and reasonably wealthy) professional photographer.

      Professional sports and wildlife photographers will usually have access to ultra-expensive long primes such as 600mm F4 or 800mm F5.6. Combined with their need to process and transmit images rapidly, it makes sense the have a relatively low MP camera.

      But for most amateurs, unless they are very wealthy, the reality is that they can’t afford these long primes - they are generally using shorter and more affordable lenses such as 100-400mm zooms, which necessitate the need for heavier cropping. Also amateurs in most cases just don’t have the close access that a press pass provides. So many would argue that more MP and more cropping is often the only solution.
      Sure but... 24MP was considered high MP a few years ago. I used the 5D3 for most of the last decade and rarely felt that constrained. Indeed I went back to it from the 5Ds because the bigger files rarely offered enough extra detail to justify slower processing and filling storage faster. Obviously more of most things means extra leeway, and I understand the crop reach argument as well as anyone, but the idea that 30, 40, 50MP is essential for amateurs is a bit overstated imo.
    17. He clearly stated why he preferred the R3 for the Olympics and the R5 for the safari that followed (cropping). I was amused that he does a lot of his shooting with an R6 where once again he notes lower resolution is sufficient/preferable for many of his needs.
    18. Sure but... 24MP was considered high MP a few years ago. I used the 5D3 for most of the last decade and rarely felt that constrained. Indeed I went back to it from the 5Ds because the bigger files rarely offered enough extra detail to justify slower processing and filling storage faster. Obviously more of most things means extra leeway, and I understand the crop reach argument as well as anyone, but the idea that 30, 40, 50MP is essential for amateurs is a bit overstated imo.
      I quite agree - many people probably don’t need high MP, and simply want the “latest and greatest” piece of kit, in the belief that it will magically improve their photography.

      My point was that we all have different needs, and that when choosing kit we should avoid being misled by advertising hype, and instead carefully analyse what we actually *need* and can afford for our own particular subject types and styles of operation.

      It’s probably true that most photographers need no more than 15-20MP. But there are many including myself who genuinely need high MP for at least some of our work. I could easily get away with 20MP for 90% of my work, but I need higher resolution for the other 10%.

      Another way of looking at it is that it’s better to have too much than too little, both in terms of megapixels and overall specification. We might be getting absolutely satisfactory photographs with a relatively low res machine, but it’s good to have something “in reserve” for those occasions when more is needed.

      The only issue I have with high MP cameras, as Jeff Cable also pointed out, is that it would be extremely useful if the user could select different FF resolutions on any particular camera. A camera that could switch between 24, 48 and 96 MP would be rather nice.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment