Dynamic range testing of the Canon EOS R3 is complete

[unfocused]

...we are at a place where the improvements are technically measurable but functionally identical.

This is how I feel. It's nice that various sites attempt these types of tests, but I feel as though the technology has reached a point where there is little practical value to these tests. For owners who care about these sorts of things, it can provide some bragging rights or confirmation bias in affirming a purchase decision that has already been made. But, I would never make a decision to buy or not buy a product based on test results from Mr. Claff, DXO or DPR. That's not meant as a put down, but rather just an acknowledgement that technology has improved to the point where "technically measurable but functionally identical" has become the norm.

 

[adrian_bacon]

This is how I feel. It's nice that various sites attempt these types of tests, but I feel as though the technology has reached a point where there is little practical value to these tests. For owners who care about these sorts of things, it can provide some bragging rights or confirmation bias in affirming a purchase decision that has already been made. But, I would never make a decision to buy or not buy a product based on test results from Mr. Claff, DXO or DPR. That's not meant as a put down, but rather just an acknowledgement that technology has improved to the point where "technically measurable but functionally identical" has become the norm.

I couldn't agree more. Sure there are niche scenarios where it can make a difference, but for working professionals that do actual paid work assignments, from an overall image quality perspective, even entry level cameras are adequate and have been so for a while. What camera you get should depend on what features it has (like shooting frame rate, body size, buttons, etc), not based on how it stacks up on an image quality performance chart. I'm of the opinion that anybody who says any cameras made in the last few years is unusable because of performance, is just using that as an excuse to justify whatever decision they made to go with whatever camera they have. They're all more than good enough for paid work from an image quality perspective.

 

[SereneSpeed]

All cameras are equal, but some cameras are more equal than others.

 

[Ozarker]

Ok, so you are saying you are guessing. Exactly what I thought. Canon makes it pretty clear in the manual that they are not applying noise reduction.

Yer as ignerant as I am when it comes to this. Best to admit it and shut up.

 

[Czardoom]

This is how I feel. It's nice that various sites attempt these types of tests, but I feel as though the technology has reached a point where there is little practical value to these tests. For owners who care about these sorts of things, it can provide some bragging rights or confirmation bias in affirming a purchase decision that has already been made. But, I would never make a decision to buy or not buy a product based on test results from Mr. Claff, DXO or DPR. That's not meant as a put down, but rather just an acknowledgement that technology has improved to the point where "technically measurable but functionally identical" has become the norm.

Agree completely. What would make a thread like this interesting, is some real world examples. Early on someone mentioned the performance with electronic shutter. Rather than a graph, let's see some examples of shots taken with ES and others with mechanical shutter. Instead of charts showing a 1/4 or 1/2 stop improvement in DR, let's see some actual shots so we can see real world differences (or no difference as the case may be). I'm not saying the charts are wrong or that the info is bad or mistaken in any way, but if you are a photographer, then actual photos are what matters. Personally speaking, once Canon went to their newer architecture, I have yet to take a photo where I needed more DR. A few years back, I did choose the R over the RP because the RP had the older architecture and I do take a lot of sunset photos which can be a challenge (and yes, the charts helped me decide, but not until I took actual photos with each camera and saw how much I could lift shadows, post process, etc.). But nowadays, the differences seem so small between cameras that they do seem functionally identical in terms of DR. I would argue, that DR is now the least important factor when choosing a new camera. Whether you need more MP or not, more FPS or not, a larger buffer or not, seems far more important in differentiating one camera from another.

 

[tron]

The EOS R3 is easily the nicest camera I've ever used. Just overall the speed and stability of everything in the camera makes it an absolute pleasure to use. Nothing ever slows down, no frames ever get skipped in the EVF, no blackout at all, never hit the buffer, it's just super responsive and a pleasure to take photos with. The EVF unit is an upgrade that's hard to explain, since it has more latitude latitude to show highlights and shadows than the R5. Battery life is pretty close to double my R5's battery life, too. I never notice rolling shutter, far better performance than the R5's rolling shutter, and it's really noticeable.

24mp or not, it's a better experience than my R5 or my 1dx mark II combined. Hard to imagine how cameras could get much better than this.

Canon should sell R3 with RF1.4X as a gift and a free subscription to Topaz Gigapixel.