Going for a R3 in mid 2024, or wait for the R1?

[mmmm]

If you can't get good wedding photos with an R5, you should put your photography skills to the test. Sometimes the problem isn't a technical one.

Mate. The op said he finds the file sizes too large and the camera over heats in his experience. Becuase of those points, he asked for advice.

I’m not sure what that has to do with photography skills, unless perhaps like the best bakers, the best photographers should be blessed with cold hands.

 

[Juppeck]

There was no offence meant, and I'm not the OP you initially responded to, as you seem to think I may be.

All I'm saying is that these cameras and the 5dii iii and iv before them, are favourites for many wedding photographers. Not only are they favourites, but they're actually marketed as such, if not directly 'this is a wedding photographers camera'. They are not solely 'consumer cameras', if at all.

Its not that I didn't like your assessment. Its just your assessment is based on very light usage when compared to many photographers, and your conclusion to that assessment is: "I dont see any problems with the way I shoot, so therefore everyone else is wrong". Well, thats a flawed conclusion.

Again, I dont shoot with any r series just yet. But I do shoot professionally, as in its my job and is my income. I'm currently using 5div bodies, and sessions range from 1 hour to 14 hours. I shoot something between 400 and 6000 or more in a given session depending on its length.

Your claim that 400 in 4 hours is a good indicator to whether the camera gives off excessive heat doesn't hold much weight to the people who use these cameras in a different way to you.

The 400 images in 4 hours are not an indicator that the camera is good, but that the camera does what it was primarily built for. I often forget this. It is not a film camera and certainly not a film camera that you can use to shoot 8K films for hours.
I have also taken 600 photos in 15 minutes - they were exposure series. It is particularly good at focus braking and that is what I bought it for.
I am not offended and I am not insulting anyone. I am simply bothered by the statements that an R5 gets so unbearably warm after still image photography that you would rather wait for an R5-II.
In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the R5-II. If I didn't have an R5 and wanted to buy a new Canon, I would also wait for the R5-II. But this camera will also have its pitfalls and shortcomings. You just have to live with that. But I think we are complaining at a very high level right now. It is also very possible to take very good photos with just an EOS-R. I do this now and again. And I also still use the EOS 5Ds and 5DMK4, even though I actually prefer the two Rs.
It's just a question of personal skills and the task that needs to be done. I'm confident enough to handle many scenes, but not all of them. The Rs help me a lot when taking pictures thanks to the EVF. Everything else you just have to learn. No matter how good a camera is, it won't be able to take photos for you. No matter what automatic focus it has. As a photographer, you have to know how to use the system. No R5-II, R3 or R1 will help you in that case.
But I think that everything has been written now. I'll take a look at your answer, if you want to write one. But then it's good.

 

[OldDudePhotog]

Hey folks,

I‘m shooting weddings with an R5 for the last couple of years, but getting more and more tired of the overheating/slowing down of the camera, the Eye AF performance and honestly the file size bothers me too. I mainly focus on photography.

Now, I am considering switching to an R3, but with the R1 around the corner I am asking myself some questions.

• Will the price of the R3 drop further after the R1 is announced? I have seen offers as low as 4,300€ (with tax) lately. The R1 surely will start with a asking price over 7,199€
• I haven‘t seen any rumours about a R3 M2. Will there ever be one?
• Is there any reason to spent as close as double the amount on the R1? I don‘t shot sports or wildlife at the moment.
• Should I just wait until the official announcement?!

I read the R1 rumours, but they didn‘t got me excited at all.

If you do not already have an R3 I would probably wait for the R1 unless you simply don’t need that, the R3 is a very capable camera.

 

[mmmm]

I have spent many years using a dual body set up. A 5diii and a 5div. They’re working well, if a bit rough around the edges (re:falling apart) I can work with them producing the same quality images I have for many years.

I shoot portraits on location mainly, a few weddings. Mainly models and romance couples type stuff.

I’m pondering between the r1, r3, or r5ii for my upgrade.

I would hate to think i couldn’t ask the forum here for advice because someone opines that I should never need an upgrade because my opinion on my own shooting style/job/workflow/method/gear didn’t align with theirs and was therefore somehow invalid. Especially a casual shooter chiming in on something they clearly know nothing about.

The 400 images in 4 hours are not an indicator that the camera is good, but that the camera does what it was primarily built for. I often forget this. It is not a film camera and certainly not a film camera that you can use to shoot 8K films for hours.
I have also taken 600 photos in 15 minutes - they were exposure series. It is particularly good at focus braking and that is what I bought it for.
I am not offended and I am not insulting anyone. I am simply bothered by the statements that an R5 gets so unbearably warm after still image photography that you would rather wait for an R5-II.
In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the R5-II. If I didn't have an R5 and wanted to buy a new Canon, I would also wait for the R5-II. But this camera will also have its pitfalls and shortcomings. You just have to live with that. But I think we are complaining at a very high level right now. It is also very possible to take very good photos with just an EOS-R. I do this now and again. And I also still use the EOS 5Ds and 5DMK4, even though I actually prefer the two Rs.
It's just a question of personal skills and the task that needs to be done. I'm confident enough to handle many scenes, but not all of them. The Rs help me a lot when taking pictures thanks to the EVF. Everything else you just have to learn. No matter how good a camera is, it won't be able to take photos for you. No matter what automatic focus it has. As a photographer, you have to know how to use the system. No R5-II, R3 or R1 will help you in that case.
But I think that everything has been written now. I'll take a look at your answer, if you want to write one. But then it's good.

 

[trexphotos]

I just bought the R5mkII, and for sports, action, and pixel peeping the upgrade is worth it. But for portraits, street and other static situations the R6mk ii excels.
I & others can not tell the difference online or printed between either mkII. So maybe save some money and go with a R6 mkII. If Money is no object, then get the R1.

 

[patrickvisuals]

Thanks for your insight. Very interested to hear about your first wedding with it! Do update this post.

I have now shot four weddings over the last few weeks with the R3 and have some opinions .

• It's lighter (obv) than the R5 with the battery grip, and you feel appreciate it on a long day of shooting.
• The camera is fast. I mean really fast. No comparison to my old R5. The R5 II probably is on par here, though.
• 24MP is enough. A long time I thought that I need the most MP available, but nowadays not anymore. 24MP are plenty and enough for even bigger prints or photo albums.
• The camera feels incredible nice with the layout and the grip it has.
• AF is better than the R5 ofc.
• Eye AF is a nice gimmick, but not really useful for me. At times, it got me distracted looking for that orange circle. I disabled it pretty quickly.
• I really looked forward to the optical AF control, but that thing is so sensitive, that I stick to the regular joystick. Even the slightest touch moves the AF point around like crazy.
• The battery is decent as well. One battery last me around 2-3h of wedding coverage. The more you shoot, the more battery you will use.
  • I have GPS on all the time and the view finder is on high fps. So you can save same battery there if needed.
• The photo/video switch is super neat and fast.
• Low light is better, but most of my weddings were in bright daylight anyway.

Would I buy the R3 again? 100%.

 

[mmmm]

I have now shot four weddings over the last few weeks with the R3 and have some opinions .

• It's lighter (obv) than the R5 with the battery grip, and you feel appreciate it on a long day of shooting.
• The camera is fast. I mean really fast. No comparison to my old R5. The R5 II probably is on par here, though.
• 24MP is enough. A long time I thought that I need the most MP available, but nowadays not anymore. 24MP are plenty and enough for even bigger prints or photo albums.
• The camera feels incredible nice with the layout and the grip it has.
• AF is better than the R5 ofc.
• Eye AF is a nice gimmick, but not really useful for me. At times, it got me distracted looking for that orange circle. I disabled it pretty quickly.
• I really looked forward to the optical AF control, but that thing is so sensitive, that I stick to the regular joystick. Even the slightest touch moves the AF point around like crazy.
• The battery is decent as well. One battery last me around 2-3h of wedding coverage. The more you shoot, the more battery you will use.
  • I have GPS on all the time and the view finder is on high fps. So you can save same battery there if needed.
• The photo/video switch is super neat and fast.
• Low light is better, but most of my weddings were in bright daylight anyway.

Would I buy the R3 again? 100%.

Thanks for the info! Very interesting. Regarding the low light, I assume it makes shooting in the church (if thats what you do) a nicer experience? Thats always a complicated situation with light.

 

[OldDudePhotog]

Thanks for the info! Very interesting. Regarding the low light, I assume it makes shooting in the church (if thats what you do) a nicer experience? Thats always a complicated situation with light.

I used my R5M2 a couple of weeks ago to shoot a night cross-country race, one of the 4 individual races in the event. I then used my R3 to shoot the next few races. Once I was finished and started editing, I found the R5M2 was using a lower ISO than the R3. Both cameras used the same lens, in the same conditions (sun was fully down before all events, and used the same camera settings (shutter priority, same shutter speed) to take the pictures. The R5M2 has really great low-light capabilities that seem to meet, or maybe even exceed the R3, based on my not-so-scientific testing. I took all pictures from the same spot so lighting conditions were consistent. 1/800 shutter, f2.8, R3 had ISO of 10000, R5M2 had ISO of 8000.

 

[candyman]

..... I found the R5M2 was using a lower ISO than the R3. Both cameras used the same lens, in the same conditions (sun was fully down before all events, and used the same camera settings (shutter priority, same shutter speed) to take the pictures. The R5M2 has really great low-light capabilities that seem to meet, or maybe even exceed the R3, based on my not-so-scientific testing. I took all pictures from the same spot so lighting conditions were consistent. 1/800 shutter, f2.8, R3 had ISO of 10000, R5M2 had ISO of 8000.

Did you use auto ISO? Maybe the new metering (6144 zones from a 96x64 grid) of the R5MK2 is a benefit here? Duade Paton reports that the higher ISO on the R5 MK2 is a tad worse than the R5. Don't know about the R3 but I assume the R3 would do better.

 

[mmmm]

I used my R5M2 a couple of weeks ago to shoot a night cross-country race, one of the 4 individual races in the event. I then used my R3 to shoot the next few races. Once I was finished and started editing, I found the R5M2 was using a lower ISO than the R3. Both cameras used the same lens, in the same conditions (sun was fully down before all events, and used the same camera settings (shutter priority, same shutter speed) to take the pictures. The R5M2 has really great low-light capabilities that seem to meet, or maybe even exceed the R3, based on my not-so-scientific testing. I took all pictures from the same spot so lighting conditions were consistent. 1/800 shutter, f2.8, R3 had ISO of 10000, R5M2 had ISO of 8000.

Interesting. Thanks!

 

[meywd]

I used my R5M2 a couple of weeks ago to shoot a night cross-country race, one of the 4 individual races in the event. I then used my R3 to shoot the next few races. Once I was finished and started editing, I found the R5M2 was using a lower ISO than the R3. Both cameras used the same lens, in the same conditions (sun was fully down before all events, and used the same camera settings (shutter priority, same shutter speed) to take the pictures. The R5M2 has really great low-light capabilities that seem to meet, or maybe even exceed the R3, based on my not-so-scientific testing. I took all pictures from the same spot so lighting conditions were consistent. 1/800 shutter, f2.8, R3 had ISO of 10000, R5M2 had ISO of 8000.

Hmm, can you show an example where the same ISO used and the R5M2 was better? or are you comparing the higher ISO image of the R3, which I guess would still be better due to sensor size. unless what you mean by low light capabilities is the fact that the R5M2 was using a lower ISO?

 

[OldDudePhotog]

Did you use auto ISO? Maybe the new metering (6144 zones from a 96x64 grid) of the R5MK2 is a benefit here? Duade Paton reports that the higher ISO on the R5 MK2 is a tad worse than the R5. Don't know about the R3 but I assume the R3 would do better.

I use shutter priority so yes iso was set to auto.

 

[OldDudePhotog]

Hmm, can you show an example where the same ISO used and the R5M2 was better? or are you comparing the higher ISO image of the R3, which I guess would still be better due to sensor size. unless what you mean by low light capabilities is the fact that the R5M2 was using a lower ISO?

Possibly, I've tried to upload shots before but the files are too large and if I compress them or lower the quality then it is no longer an exact comparison. I had more noise in the R3 images than the R5m2 from that night, but again this was not what I would call a scientific comparison, so I am stopping short of making any claims other than the lower ISO (easily proven) and the perception of lower noise. I'm looking for my original images now as the ones I kept and shared with the parents from my R3 I ran through a de-noise routine before uploading them.

Edit: If I can find an original from my R3 I will share a link that has both pictures to compare.

 

[AlanF]

Possibly, I've tried to upload shots before but the files are too large and if I compress them or lower the quality then it is no longer an exact comparison. I had more noise in the R3 images than the R5m2 from that night, but again this was not what I would call a scientific comparison, so I am stopping short of making any claims other than the lower ISO (easily proven) and the perception of lower noise. I'm looking for my original images now as the ones I kept and shared with the parents from my R3 I ran through a de-noise routine before uploading them.

Edit: If I can find an original from my R3 I will share a link that has both pictures to compare.

Just crop them to a size you can load. For example, you could just crop the subject, or you could divide a large file into 4 quarters.

 

[OldDudePhotog]

I do not have my original R3 photos from that night but the one from the R5M2 was untouched and is the jpg that was produced from the camera, not exported from raw. The R3 image was a raw image that was run through a de-noise and exported as jpg. Link below.

Access via Synology

Click here to open the link

asdf786defsghjg.quickconnect.to