Gordon Laing from CameraLabs gives his first reviews of the new Canon gear, including the EOS R3
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
you and me both my friend, too many youtube videos for a single morning, I alslo loved Vanessa Joy Videos really really funny an very comprehensive
Vanessa Joy R3 review
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Customizable Q menu has been a 1Dx feature for at least the last two generations, glad to hear it is included with the R3. I hope saving settings to a card is also included, nice to have when you send the camera in to CPS for cleaning and they reset everything to default.
Upvote
0
Or to your own. On my 1DX I have groups of C# settings for different used cases, and I keep them on an old 2 GB CF card so I can swap them out as needed.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Sure, but one could just as easily say:
Sony A1: 9.44M dot EVF
Canon R3: 5.76 dot EVF
or:
Sony A1: .9x magnification EVF
Canon R3: 0.76x magnification EVF
or even:
Sony A1: 240 FPS EVF
Canon R3: 120 FPS EVF
Personally, I use the EVF about 10x as much as the LCD. If given a choice, I would have preferred to see an improvement in the EVF over an improvement in the LCD as compared with my R5. I do thing the EVF on the R5 is already quite good, though extra magnification and a less pixelated look would have been nice.
Unless Sony addressed the weird lack of touch screen functionality on their rear LCD, I would think that that would be a bigger annoyance than the 1.4mpx display.
We all take photos a little differently. Personally I don't think the LCD is a big differentiator here.
Upvote
0
Yes, the Sony wins on most of the EVF specs - apart from the most important one, i.e. usability. The eye-controlled AF point selection on the R3 looks to be a huge game changer and certainly one of the major appeals of the camera. I especially like the fact that the "orange dot" that marks what you are looking at, can be turned off, leaving a clutter free viewfinder that promises to offer the greatest usability of anything yet seen.
But I agree that a higher resolution EVF would have been nicer, especially considering the price of the camera. I'm not sure what is the point of having a high res LCD, as the eyes will be a few inches away from it and unable to detect the difference. I suppose it could have some value when reviewing at high magnification, but personally I do my chimping through the EVF, not on the LCD.
Upvote
0
Yes, Gordon's reviews are always very thorough and well articulated. But actually I discover more from Jared Polin and from Chris & Jordan, who come closer to providing a pseudo-hands on experience. I always make a point of watching all 3 reviews.
I also try to find reviews by appropriate specialists e.g. BIF and sports photographers, because they can reveal particular advantages/disadvantages, and approaches to technique that are relevant to particular cameras.
Upvote
0
If you want to just "stick to the facts" then you can go read the specification sheet on Canon's own website. That's what "sticking to the facts" is. The whole point of a review is someone spends some significant time with a product and then tells you about what their particular experience with it was like, which you can then compare against your own requirements and get a better understanding of whether the product in question is likely to suit you or not.
Gordon doesn't spend much time with the equipment, operates under embargo (mutual agreements with a manufacturer about when, where, and what he can say, in exchange for early access to the product) and 90% of what he says in any given video is just rephrasing the manufacturer's marketing copy. Most of the time he's also not using production units and draws conclusions without so much as glancing at a consumer-facing result. (For example, talking about image quality before raw processing software has been updated to actually support the camera or lens.)
A "first-class review" of a camera or lens isn't—ever—something that comes out in the first few days after announcement or release. The reviewer needs to have enough time with it to test it in a variety of scenarios, software needs to receive updates to actually handle the files or lens profiles, and they need to explain their experience beyond just rewording the spec sheet and PR-penned taglines. The same goes for any other type of product you can name. "Sticking to the facts", regurgitating specifications, is not a review. A good reviewer is not one who tells you what you've already decided you want to hear or takes 20 minutes to ponderously repeat what you could read for yourself in 5; a good reviewer is someone who tells you their thorough experience, regardless of if that lines up with your expectations or the manufacturer's claims or not.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 10 staff post(s)
- Contains 3 staff post(s)
