Canon officially announces the Canon EOS R3

[neuroanatomist]

Nope, the pro wildlife photographers are using the r5 and a1 period! cropping extends your range significantly especially for wild life photography. Those still shooting with lower mp bodies are simply the old guard who refuse to embrace the advantages of high megapixel bodies or the broke amateurs.

Lol. Thanks so very much for sharing your pithy knowledge. You may return to your troll cave now, and let the grown-ups talk.

 

[JustUs7]

I don't give a rat's ass about video and sick of paying extra for video features.. and now a new hotshoe.

This has been covered many times. You’re not paying for video features. The video features are the result of processors and sensors and AF that also greatly improve stills photography. It’s a matter of programming to have video features. A camera without them would be far more expensive using today’s technology.

 

[Bishop80]

Nope, the pro wildlife photographers are using the r5 and a1 period! cropping extends your range significantly especially for wild life photography. Those still shooting with lower mp bodies are simply the old guard who refuse to embrace the advantages of high megapixel bodies or the broke amateurs.

To state what is likely obvious, sweeping generalizations like that are not accurate (or well received). However, I don't know much about the pro wildlife group (sports is my thing), so I don't know what the current body breakdown across that group would be.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Nope, the pro wildlife photographers are using the r5 and a1 period! cropping extends your range significantly especially for wild life photography. Those still shooting with lower mp bodies are simply the old guard who refuse to embrace the advantages of high megapixel bodies or the broke amateurs.

A good wildlife photographer doesn't significantly crop, if you have to, the photo goes in the bin because you weren't close enough. Unless there is something exceptional or rare that you want proof of. I know a few PhaseOne pros that don't crop beyond something distracting on the edge of the frame or to straighten a horizon.

Why would you waste your time trying to make a good frame and then hack off a bunch of the data? That's a waste of the photographer's time and quite frankly lazy.

I'm just talking about pros, not folks that are on a tight budget and learning.

 

[SteveC]

So you joined Aug 11 and have nothing useful to contribute. Why join?

Because Sony has useful money to contribute to his bank account.

 

[degos]

Why would you waste your time trying to make a good frame and then hack off a bunch of the data? That's a waste of the photographer's time and quite frankly lazy.

I'm just talking about pros, not folks that are on a tight budget and learning.

Because sometimes / often at 1200mm they can't fill the frame? Same at airshows nowadays with ever-increasing 'safety distances, when the closest you can get to a small fast-moving jet is 230 metres horizontally.

 

[Jack Douglas]

A good wildlife photographer doesn't significantly crop, if you have to, the photo goes in the bin because you weren't close enough. Unless there is something exceptional or rare that you want proof of. I know a few PhaseOne pros that don't crop beyond something distracting on the edge of the frame or to straighten a horizon.

Why would you waste your time trying to make a good frame and then hack off a bunch of the data? That's a waste of the photographer's time and quite frankly lazy.

I'm just talking about pros, not folks that are on a tight budget and learning.

I kind of already knew I wasn't a pro but now I can no longer plead ignorance.

I've heard that the pros are so busy taking great photos that they don't have time to read CR but I don't have the scientific study to back this up.

Jack

 

[jayphotoworks]

A good wildlife photographer doesn't significantly crop, if you have to, the photo goes in the bin because you weren't close enough. Unless there is something exceptional or rare that you want proof of. I know a few PhaseOne pros that don't crop beyond something distracting on the edge of the frame or to straighten a horizon.

Why would you waste your time trying to make a good frame and then hack off a bunch of the data? That's a waste of the photographer's time and quite frankly lazy.

I'm just talking about pros, not folks that are on a tight budget and learning.

I'm a working pro and I crop occasionally because sometimes I'm just not in the right position at the right time. Obviously I'm not shooting with the mindset that I'm intending to crop 100%, but having that latitude does allow me to salvage some shots that would have been binned. Heck, I've even done this from time to time with 4K footage when I'm delivering 1080p.

This year, I've found a high MP count helpful because of the pandemic with cordoned off areas due to social distancing and crowd controlled laneways at some of the events I've shot at where I was able to get slightly better composition after cropping. But it wouldn't suddenly be a deal breaker if I was working with 24MP and really hadn't been in the years prior when I only had 24MP to work with..

 

[TinTin]

I would like my five minutes back. What a sinfully boring video that tells us absolutely nothing.

What! Didn't you learn that, if you go to Pictureline in Salt Lake City, you can purchase an R3 off the shelf!

 

[AlanF]

A good wildlife photographer doesn't significantly crop, if you have to, the photo goes in the bin because you weren't close enough. Unless there is something exceptional or rare that you want proof of. I know a few PhaseOne pros that don't crop beyond something distracting on the edge of the frame or to straighten a horizon.

Why would you waste your time trying to make a good frame and then hack off a bunch of the data? That's a waste of the photographer's time and quite frankly lazy.

I'm just talking about pros, not folks that are on a tight budget and learning.

Depends on the wildlife and what it is doing. Try getting close to a bird in flight that always soars high. Small fast flying erratic birds usually have to be captured with a wide field of view because they move so fast across the view. And that’s an even greater problem with dragonflies in true flight. You have to crop like mad with such subjects. And the more pixels you can put on a small subject, the more the possibilities are available to you. On the other hand, I‘ve rarely had problems photoing giraffes and elephants.

 

[Sporgon]

To state what is likely obvious, sweeping generalizations like that are not accurate (or well received). However, I don't know much about the pro wildlife group (sports is my thing), so I don't know what the current body breakdown across that group would be.

If you look at some of the most prestigious wildlife photographic completions / exhibitions it’s surprising just how much this genre of photographers don’t appear to prioritise high mp cameras as part of their gear. Clearly other specs of the equipment are more important to them.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Nope, the pro wildlife photographers are using the r5 and a1 period!

Apologies if this is a dumb question, but just how many "pro wildlife photographers" are there? I can't imagine there could be more than about 100 people able to make a living doing that anywhere in the world. Even if it's 1000, it still seems like a pretty specialized segment.

 

[AlanF]

If you look at some of the most prestigious wildlife photographic completions / exhibitions it’s surprising just how much this genre of photographers don’t appear to prioritise high mp cameras as part of their gear. Clearly other specs of the equipment are more important to them.

High resolution FF sensors are relatively new, and bird photographers have often used crop until very recently to get high resolution. I checked the winners and featured photos of the large Natural History Museum contest to see the gear used. There was an eclectic mix, and the main winner used a Z7, and there were 5Dlll and 1DXII Among others. There was a significant number of 7DIIs, which are equivalent to 50 Mpx FF, including one used for a beautiful shot of a puffin in flight from @digigal who posts here. Our semi-resident pro Glenn Bartley, who specialises in small birds, has used a 7DII for many years. Both he and digigal have migrated to R5s, which might indicate something. Birders like high resolution. Others have their own priorities. Art Morris of birdsasart website and many of his associates now use high resolution FF.

 

[digigal]

High resolution FF sensors are relatively new, and bird photographers have often used crop until very recently to get high resolution. I checked the winners and featured photos of the large Natural History Museum contest to see the gear used. There was an eclectic mix, and the main winner used a Z7, and there were 5Dlll and 1DXII Among others. There was a significant number of 7DIIs, which are equivalent to 50 Mpx FF, including one used for a beautiful shot of a puffin in flight from @digigal who posts here. Our semi-resident pro Glenn Bartley, who specialises in small birds, has used a 7DII for many years. Both he and digigal have migrated to R5s, which might indicate something. Birders like high resolution. Others have their own priorities. Art Morris of birdsasart website and many of his associates now use high resolution FF.

Unfortunately, I'm one of the old geezers who's still trying to do bird photography and it's getting harder and harder to handhold that heavy gear so I eagerly hope Canon will heed the pleas of the bird photographers requesting a crop R mount camera that has a fast and precise focusing system--I need it for the reach and the ability to use a lighter weight lens so I can still keep doing this or I'll have to cut back to larger and larger wildlife (which which I've been increasingly including).
Catherine

 

[Sporgon]

High resolution FF sensors are relatively new,

I don’t think we can say they are ‘relatively new’ now in digital photography terms; the Sony A7R and Nikon D800 were introduced nearly ten years ago, the 5DS six years ago. If the greater ‘resolution’ - read output size in reality - was critical to wild life photographers these guys would have been all over these camera bodies yet the evidence is that they have not been.

 

[SnowMiku]

Unfortunately, I'm one of the old geezers who's still trying to do bird photography and it's getting harder and harder to handhold that heavy gear so I eagerly hope Canon will heed the pleas of the bird photographers requesting a crop R mount camera that has a fast and precise focusing system--I need it for the reach and the ability to use a lighter weight lens so I can still keep doing this or I'll have to cut back to larger and larger wildlife (which which I've been increasingly including).
Catherine

Have you considered the 90D and the EF 70-300mm IS II as a light weight alternative? It's equivalent to 480mm which is only 20mm short of the RF 100-500mm L. The 32.5 MP sensor also helps a lot with cropping.

 

[AlanF]

Nikon introduced the D500 for bird and nature photographers with its high density sensor

I don’t think we can say they are ‘relatively new’ now in digital photography terms; the Sony A7R and Nikon D800 were introduced nearly ten years ago, the 5DS six years ago. If the greater ‘resolution’ - read output size in reality - was critical to wild life photographers these guys would have been all over these camera bodies yet the evidence is that they have not been.

I am one of “these guys” doing wild life. You do buildings according to your signature. The D800 was not introduced as a wild life camera and Nikon introduced the D500 APS-C with its D series AF and equivalent to a ~45 Mpx sensor and 10 fps for wild life, which is beloved by Nikon bird shooters. The 5DSR is quite popular with wild life shooters - I have posted 100s of shots with it in the bird threads here, including BIF and dragonflies. The D850 from Nikon is also popular. The current consensus among many bird photographers is that the Sony A1 and R5 are battling out for first place and the D500 is next. Many who took up the Sony A9 because of its AF and stacked sensor are moving to the A1 because of its higher Mpx. If you don’t believe me, go and look at the threads on Fred Miranda where the bird photographers hang out, and you can see for yourself I am not inventing the evidence for this.

 

[AlanF]

Have you considered the 90D and the EF 70-300mm IS II as a light weight alternative? It's equivalent to 480mm which is only 20mm short of the RF 100-500mm L. The 32.5 MP sensor also helps a lot with cropping.

The 90D is a fine camera, but the AF is not up to 7DII standards. Digigal has an R5, and the new 100-400 will pair nicely with it to give a lightweight combination with outstanding AF. The Canon MTFs for the RF 100-400 are quite good, and I’ll post a comparison with other lenses.
Edit: I should have mentioned, in terms of field of view, 300mm on an APS-C has the view of 480mm on FF. However, in terms of resolution or reach, a 300mm on a 32.5Mpx 90D is equivalent to 411 mm on a 45Mpx R5 (3.2 vs 4.39 µ pixels).

 

[Sporgon]

Nikon introduced the D500 for bird and nature photographers with its high density sensor

If you don’t believe me, go and look at the threads on Fred Miranda where the bird photographers hang out, and you can see for yourself I am not inventing the evidence for this.

I'm not suggesting that you are. What I am saying is that if you look at the wildlife photographers who have been successful in getting their images into the public eye over the last few years there does not appear to have been a rush to the high mp version of the camera make that they choose to use. Inevitably this will change in the future as models become both high mp and offer the specifications that they want, but to my mind it shows that other aspects of the cameras performance were more important to them than just high mp, and I'm not specifically talking about amateur bird photographers, where 'crop factor' and high pixel density do seem to be valued.

 

[AlanF]

I'm not suggesting that you are. What I am saying is that if you look at the wildlife photographers who have been successful in getting their images into the public eye over the last few years there does not appear to have been a rush to the high mp version of the camera make that they choose to use. Inevitably this will change in the future as models become both high mp and offer the specifications that they want, but to my mind it shows that other aspects of the cameras performance were more important to them than just high mp, and I'm not specifically talking about amateur bird photographers, where 'crop factor' and high pixel density do seem to be valued.

The Bird Photographers of the year were announced a week or so ago https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...otographer-of-the-year-2021-winners-announced
The Nikon D850 and D500s were the most prominent bodies. Gordon Laing said at the end of the review of the R3 it’s not aimed at wild life shooters.