Canon tech specialist talks the Canon EOS R3

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
559
661
UK
Depends on the art. This triptych by Hieronymus Bosch deserves closer study than the 4.3 m / 14' viewing distance that your diagonal measure guideline would suggest is optimum.

People viewing the painting at the Museo del Prado in Madrid tend to stand much closer than 4 m.
Yes, most people stand back from a large print or painting to take in the overall artwork, but they very often then approach as closely as they can, to study the finer details. It’s a natural human behaviour to get close and seek out the details.

As an aside, I should add the caveat that in museums and galleries people also tend to approach artworks closely simply because there are other folk blocking their view...:mad:

The *optimum* viewing distance for a photograph varies according to the size of the print, the level of detail “expected” to be seen, the subject matter, and the angle of view and camera-to-subject distance chosen by the photographer. A wide-angle landscape for example is usually best appreciated from a very short viewing distance, which helps to recreate the immersive experience felt by the photographer surrounded by nature’s glory.
 
Last edited:

jeffa4444

EOS 5D Mark IV
Feb 28, 2013
1,548
198
68
Yes it’s old tech but I use a Canon 5DS for portraits as well as an EOS R. Against the grain of thought here I use a Canon R6 for landscapes and along with the RF24-105mm f4L and the RF 70-200mm f4L I’ve been more than happy with prints out of my Canon A3 printer which is as large as I print. Unless your cropping heavily which I often do with portraits (it’s interesting how different shots can look cropped from the original) then quality of lenses is just as important as how many MP your packing In determining picture quality.
The EF 85mm F1.4L on the R6 still looks amazing as it does on the 5DS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7 and CanonFanBoy

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,699
4,132
Irving, Texas
...(it’s interesting how different shots can look cropped from the original)...
^^^This^^^ Someone might argue, "If you get the composition right at the start..." Well, sometimes that doesn't happen, and sometimes we spot the photo/composition within the photo and can crop. Cropping can cover a multitude of sins. It can also be a very powerful creative tool. Even just going from the 5D Mark III to the megapixels of the R has been a huge help to me.

*I don't do street photography, but I imagine a high megapixel camera could really be useful for that.
 

BuffaloBird

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Apr 1, 2020
16
51
I predominantly shoot wildlife (birds), and I'm absolutely passing on this due to the low MP.
 

HenryL

EOS R3, R5
CR Pro
Apr 1, 2020
340
898
I predominantly shoot wildlife (birds), and I'm absolutely passing on this due to the low MP.
Lately I've been more into wildlife/birds and trying to learn landscape too, so I initially balked when the 24MP rumors started and I wrote this camera off. By announcement day I'd rethought my approach and I ordered an R3 despite the low MP. My R5 will still be for landscape, but the R3 can definitely add value to the wildlife toolkit (not to mention portraiture, my original photographic pursuit). On any given outing, one will be the primary and the other can fill in nicely.

I suspect the tracking will be a big improvement over the R5 in practice, and I'm curious to see what the eye control AF and new sensor can do. I certainly don't need it, but I've been a one-camera guy since I got my R5 and I want that second body back so it might as well be this one. I think the two cameras complement each other well, much the way the 5DIV & 7DII did - each had something unique to offer. I don't think I'd ever want two identical bodies.

With supply being what it is, I figure I can do an extended test period and sell it used at not much of a loss after 3-6 months if I don't like it. It took the R5/R6 almost a year to be fairly widely available in the US at least so should be a fairly easy sell should it come to that. Anyway, I guess I just wanted to put a different perspective out there.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,206
916
Davidson, NC
Real men want a massive engine in their car and more MP in their camera. Anyone who settles for a turbocharged V6 when there is an 8 L, 16 cylinder 1500 hp engine available, or anyone who settles for a 50 MP FF camera when there’s a 150 MP MF camera available, is a wuss.
Or men need big weapons, engines, megapixels, to compensate for other things.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,206
916
Davidson, NC
I have a 13” x 19” print hanging on the wall of the Grand Pacific Glacier in Alaska. It looks great from any distance. I took it with a 4MP Casio in 2002. I am at a loss to explain it. It is not just a solid sheet of ice. There is much detail, particularly in the face toward the bay.

This discussion does give me an additional reason to avoid buying a GFX 100S: I would need to factor in the cost of a bigger printer to take advantage of that resolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Howland

Bob Howland

EOS RP
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
669
268
I have a 13” x 19” print hanging on the wall of the Grand Pacific Glacier in Alaska. It looks great from any distance. I took it with a 4MP Casio in 2002. I am at a loss to explain it. It is not just a solid sheet of ice. There is much detail, particularly in the face toward the bay.

This discussion does give me an additional reason to avoid buying a GFX 100S: I would need to factor in the cost of a bigger printer to take advantage of that resolution.
That's about 127 pixels per inch.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,206
916
Davidson, NC
That's about 127 pixels per inch.
Or a little less, counting cropping for the aspect ratio. On the other hand, there is a small margin. But that resolution doesn’t sound so awful considering the 20MP and 26MP files I normally print. I think the Epson software does a rather good job interpolating and in doling out the eight inks.