DXOMark concludes that the Canon EOS R3 is the ‘best low light performer’

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,165
919
"The EOS R3 also has built-in 5-axis sensor stabilization, which is claimed to reduce camera shake by up to 8 stops with certain IS equipped RF lenses."
That is not correct.
Canon IBIS can achieve 8 stops with certain non IS RF lenses.
 

StandardLumen

EOS M50
Jul 20, 2020
49
67
I shot the R3 in low light yesterday evening and found that it's about a stop better than the R5. I'm not talking about per-pixel apples and oranges, but versus the R5 downsampled to 24 megapixels. It still shot about a stop better. I don't know if it's from the sensor or also partly from some extra noise cooking going on, but whatever they're doing, it's working pretty well.

The 24 megapixel aspect is, surprisingly, not much of an issue for anything that isn't reach-limited. It really does shoot above its megapixel weight. The comment from some days ago that it's about the sharpness/detail equivalent of the 5D4's 30 MP is probably exactly right. But at this point - despite loving the R3 - I don't plan on keeping it because the things I shoot typically *are* reach-limited, so the R5 is going to be better for me.
Did you do any side by side comparisons scaling up R3 images to R5 sizes to verify that the R5 has a significant advantage in this area? I (like everyone else) assume it probably does, but I haven't seen anyone put it to the test.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,357
5,072
"The EOS R3 also has built-in 5-axis sensor stabilization, which is claimed to reduce camera shake by up to 8 stops with certain IS equipped RF lenses."
That is not correct.
Canon IBIS can achieve 8 stops with certain non IS RF lenses.
Actually, it’s both IS and non-IS lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EOS 4 Life

YuengLinger

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,579
2,043
USA
DxO is bad enough with its ever shifting standards, and, even worse, random upgrades and downgrades of sensor ratings well after the fact.

Now they have the nerve to call Canon "low life"? Or are they implying Canon customers are "low lifes" for buying the brand?

How low can DxO go?

WAIT. Wait. Just a moment. My wife is telling me the R3 is a "low LIGHT" performer, that DxO is saying something good about Canon.

 
Last edited:

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,165
919
Actually, it’s both IS and non-IS lenses.
I guess that makes the article technically correct.
They should have written it like you did.
"The EOS R3 also has built-in 5-axis sensor stabilization, which is claimed to reduce camera shake by up to 8 stops with certain IS equipped and non-IS lenses RF lenses."
 
  • Like
Reactions: neuroanatomist

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
557
354
I've heard a lot of predictions the R1 will be 60-80MP. I definitely think those folks will be disappointed. To get a camera with the speed and feature set of a 1 series moving that amount of data is certainly possible. But I think most of the target market doesn't want or need that resolution and with current battery technology the power consumption could still be an issue. That resolution will be saved for a 5 or 6 series body I suspect.

For the R1 I don't think we'll see much more than 50MP max. I could see a few scenarios: 1) 50mp-ish stacked sensor to double the R3 2) 36-38MP sensor which is just enough to give 8k video and far enough away from the R3 to make sense or 3) The same or similar resolution to R3 but with additional features.

With the R3 at 24 and already blazingly fast, I doubt we'll see a resolution there or lower. Even with QPAF and global shutter, I don't know if that would be enough differentiation. Especially since I think they want to price this thing at $8-10k USD. (I'm hoping the competitive pressure prevents them from doing that anyway, but Canon doesn't seem to care usually). So I don't know how likely option 3 is.

All just guesses, but I do enjoy the speculation.

Brian
Obviously Sony and Nikon believe to the contrary. And so does Fujifilm. The Z9, A1 both with higher megapixel offerings. One doesnt need 180mph capability on a 4 door sedan vehicle either. However it represents the vehicle horsepower. Not the speed the owner is going to drive commuting to the office. Like having a BMW suv with 90mph top end simply because the speed limit is 70
 
Last edited:

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
557
354
To it into perspective, if it does mean anything the way it is defined by them, the R3 is 0.27 stops superior to the R6 and 0.42 stops to the R5 at the lowest light levels. And, for the overall score, DxO doesn't include the number of Mpx.

View attachment 201536
Everyone is different.
To it into perspective, if it does mean anything the way it is defined by them, the R3 is 0.27 stops superior to the R6 and 0.42 stops to the R5 at the lowest light levels. And, for the overall score, DxO doesn't include the number of Mpx.

View attachment 201536
Of course that's your own perspective. And not everyone else. Why even write what you did? One interpretation of data without any substantive facts is just an opinion. You read the website infomation and now offering your opinion based on your own interpretation.
 

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
478
566
USA
Obviously Sony and Nikon believe to the contrary. And so does Fujifilm. The Z9, A1 both with higher megapixel offerings. One doesn't need 180mph capability on a 4 door sedan vehicle either. However it represents the vehicle horsepower. Not the speed the owner is going to drive commuting to the office. Like having a BMW suv with 90mph top end simply because the speed limit is 70
Reasonable analogy. However the missing piece is when the presence of the 'extra horsepower' actually makes it harder to perform the professional task it was required to. With those fast cars, you're burning through expensive soft tires driving the speedlimit to work, paying high fuel and maintenance costs, and only reaping the benefit a small fraction of the time (if ever, at least in the US) - despite having paid extra for all of it. With 5G spreading and WIFI bandwidths growing, this will be less of a problem in the future. But there are stories out there from pros about difficulty with the file size of the A1, to select, process, convert and send them all on the 10-15minute deadlines they have (only to have them downsized for web in most cases anyway). And they can afford the $5k Macbooks with hyperfast processors. One of the YT channels did a survey over the summer where the professionals they polled landed on about 30mp as the 'sweet spot'. Which would imply that Sony and Nikon overshot, and Canon undershot. I suspect that poll if given to forum users or hobbyists would have netted a much higher number as 'the sweet spot'.

Canon has way more data from their end users than we do, and they keep landing on these moderate megapixel numbers. And they keep selling tons of copies. So there must be something to their logic.

As a hobbyist, the largest print I can reasonably fit in my house is about 36" on the long side, maybe 42 or 48 if I got really crazy. And that is easily done with 20ish MP. The scenarios where more is better exist and have been beaten to death. But in general MP count seems psychological for most people more so than actually physically limiting. Why do Sony and Nikon go higher? I think they needed to get 8k video in their flagships. (And that might be what sets the floor on resolution for an R1 as well.) Nikon especially needed to go all in on the Z9, or risk extinction. That camera competes well with the A1 and R3, and is priced to buy market share, all while giving hope to the user base disappointed in the Z6 and Z7 II offerings that better tech is coming. Sony may have thought they'd be the first mirrorless to 8k, but got surprised by the R5. Who knows? Its fun to guess though.

To go to 80 or 100 and keep the speeds of a 1 series I think they'd need dual DIGIC Xs, which will burn through batteries. Pixel binning (mentioned earlier) still has a processor overhead and would seem to slow things down in some way as well, at least without extra hardware. Could they do 60 to top the A1? Maybe. But they never seem to play the specs game with their competitors. They have the R6 at 20mp going up against the newer Sony and Nikons in the low 30s, and selling very well. The R5 is insane. The R3 is winning over a lot of the early adopters out there with its IQ and focusing system. So I think Canon will surprise us with something in the R1. It could be megapixels, But if I were a gambling man I don't think it will be more than 50million of them!

For my personal wish list, if it were less than $7k, 45mp, dual CFE slots, no video overheating, QPAF, no shutter, 20FPS (or 30 if I could throttle it), and improved EVF, I would consider buying it as my last body ever. Even though I have no business with that much camera as a hobbyist. If I didn't already have the R6, the R3 would almost fit the bill for me. But the QPAF is something I think I'd want if I were going to drop that kind of coin for the last time.

-Brian
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,062
12,675
Everyone is different.

Of course that's your own perspective. And not everyone else. Why even write what you did? One interpretation of data without any substantive facts is just an opinion. You read the website infomation and now offering your opinion based on your own interpretation.
That was not an opinion, it was a simple piece of arithmetic firmly based on the facts that had been presented. I just converted the iso numbers DxO calculated from their measurements into stops by the standard equation to show what they would mean in practice.
 

Chaitanya

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jun 27, 2013
1,508
681
35
Pune
For me, the real news here is that DxO has the R3 in hand, which hopefully means the R3 + lens modules for PhotoLab will be coming soon.
Just out of curiosity how is the photo management feature of PhotoLab especially the keyword and gps management which I heavily rely on for organisation.
Untitled1.png
 

maulanawale

EOS M6 Mark II
May 25, 2021
79
146
Just out of curiosity how is the photo management feature of PhotoLab especially the keyword and gps management which I heavily rely on for organisation. View attachment 201560

IMO, It's not the best, I use both Photolab and Lightroom and when it comes to catalog management, I prefer LR.
PL has some nice features (Noise reduction being one) that are worth the price specially if you get it on sale, but is not as intuitive I think. It does seem to be less RAM hungry though.
Something PL has that does my head in every time, and I'm sure I could find a workaround but I'd like it to be different out of the box, is that in order to filter a folder, let's say 3 stars or higher, it is a drop down menu that is too long and you need to scroll, as opposed to just clicking the third start in LR.
I have to admit however that I'm probably not the average user when it comes to UI/UX and can find the simplest thing very annoying, when most people wouldn't even notice. But since you asked :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
683
377
As an aside, I see a lot of people assuming the R1 will be a higher resolution sensor, but that actually doesn't conform to any Canon precedent.
I shot the EOS-1Ds MkI, II, and III. If memory serves they may have trailed the 1D versions by a bit, but that's still a solid decade of precedent that the highest Canon resolution was in a 1 body.

As for your other remarks, it sounds like you know what you're talking about and it matches my experience. I'd add though that shooters fancying themselves as fine art, which may include a lot of landscape shooters, likewise want pixels more than sometimes anything else.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
683
377
However the missing piece is when the presence of the 'extra horsepower' actually makes it harder to perform the professional task it was required to.

The assumption everyone seems to have is that if the camera does 80MP, say, that it won't be able to produce a 20MP file in the required time. Meanwhile, with the backside sensor tech, four little pixels at 80MP will capture pretty much the same photons as a big 20MP pixel, so it's not impossible to imagine that it might have a low-noise and high-throughput 20MP mode AND a hi-res, higher-noise, slower-working 80MP, say, from the same sensor.
 

Chaitanya

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jun 27, 2013
1,508
681
35
Pune
IMO, It's not the best, I use both Photolab and Lightroom and when it comes to catalog management, I prefer LR.
PL has some nice features (Noise reduction being one) that are worth the price specially if you get it on sale, but is not as intuitive I think. It does seem to be less RAM hungry though.
Something PL has that does my head in every time, and I'm sure I could find a workaround but I'd like it to be different out of the box, is that in order to filter a folder, let's say 3 stars or higher, it is a drop down menu that is too long and you need to scroll, as opposed to just clicking the third start in LR.
I have to admit however that I'm probably not the average user when it comes to UI/UX and can find the simplest thing very annoying, when most people wouldn't even notice. But since you asked :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Thanks, so I can keep using my old LR license for organisation purposes while moving to another program(eyeing ACDsee or On1 or something else) for editing purposes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maulanawale

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,062
12,675
Well I‘m not seeing meaningful differences in normalized RAW images. The R3 jpegs with Adobe profiles are better than the earlier cameras, but I just don’t see that in the RAW files.

View attachment 201561
Yes. Canon did so well with the sensors in the 1DXIII and the R5, and the R6 which is assumed to be derived from the 1DXIII's, it's a difficult ask to beat them on IQ.
 

Bob Howland

EOS RP
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
666
265
I shot the EOS-1Ds MkI, II, and III. If memory serves they may have trailed the 1D versions by a bit, but that's still a solid decade of precedent that the highest Canon resolution was in a 1 body.
The 1Ds series was a going concern until the 5D2 was introduced with the same pixel count as the 1Ds3. Then the 1Ds3 apparently became unsaleable. Nikon had a similar experience with their D3X. It was replaced by the D800 in a much cheaper body.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,357
5,072
Thanks, so I can keep using my old LR license for organisation purposes while moving to another program(eyeing ACDsee or On1 or something else) for editing purposes.
DxO made significant improvements in metadata handling and keyword management in the latest version (PL5). it was an area that definitely need an improvement, but to be honest I haven’t really tried the new features because I’ve always used another library management solution (Apple Aperture when it was still supported and now Photos, which is less powerful pet gets the job done).
 

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
478
566
USA
Thanks, so I can keep using my old LR license for organisation purposes while moving to another program(eyeing ACDsee or On1 or something else) for editing purposes.
My method for library management in PL is to sort my photos, process them and convert the best ones to JPG. I then metadata/keyword tag those with the event, and other identifiable information (people, genre such as landscape, cosplay, etc). With that done, I can just use the keyword search tool and it will show me all the photos with that keyword tagged to the metadata. It can also search anything in the EXIF such as the camera or lens it was taken with. I've never used LR, but this has worked for me.

As to the scrollbars - they are a bit annoying. But there is a second scroll bar that is thin that you can pull down to see the 'drop down you can't see' that the other poster was talking about. At least, if i'm thinking of the same part of the window he's thinking of.

-Brian
 

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Motorsports, Commerical, & Real Estate
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
560
598
www.diossiphotography.com
As of Monday morning I have shot a drag race for 2 days and a dark, outdoor Christmas party with the R3. I thought I was just convincing myself the sensor was performing so well on the R3 versus the R5, but then I shot the Christmas party in truly terrible light. Sunday, I edited everything. The R3 files absolutely performed a great deal better than the R5. Contrast and color remains very good at high ISO while the R5 tends to become very flat at high sensitivities.

I don’t like charts as a metric for using one camera over another. I just sorted through and edited over 1,000 files from the R3 alongside images shot with the R5. I can tell you that the R3 does a better job distinguishing between orange and red. I can also tell you that a high ISO image from the R3 has a considerable amount more dynamic range and edit beautifully.