Gordon Laing from CameraLabs gives his first reviews of the new Canon gear, including the EOS R3

[Jack Douglas]

That’s the difference between having an autofocus system sensitive to only one orientation, versus sensitivity to multiple orientations such as that provided by cross type sensors.

Yes, I understand that, and in the context of the R3, I wonder if folk who are accustomed to 1 level performance will be a little disappointed in the AF and that's why I was watching to see if Quad pixel would be a reality. Think of it this way - you drive with power assist brakes and happen to buy an old classic. You step on the brake and nearly have a fit - no problem, just step harder.

Jack

 

[koenkooi]

6400 eur in finland. Nope sound like 6099 is the tax free price…

Your VAT rate in Finland is only 5%?

 

[unfocused]

Only when they've had competition forcing them to, though. When Canon put out their first R and FL cameras (and the Canonet fixed lens rangefinders) they were a big deal because they were undercutting everyone else by a huge margin, which as a company then-new to making camera bodies, they needed to be. By the time they progressed to the FD branding they were no longer the new kids on the block and Canon spiked their prices up despite many of the first FD bodies and lenses simply being FL products renamed. When Canon got auto exposure into a mass-produced consumer body they did so because by that point Nikon and Olympus had both caught up producing cheaper bodies and wider varieties of lenses to match Canon. When Canon started getting autofocus into the mass market they did so because Nikon, Pentax and Olympus had caught up to put autoexposure in every camera. When Canon made the first Rebel digital cameras they did it as cheaply and as quickly as possible, as word had gotten out Nikon had a design for a sub-$1000 digital camera and Canon simply didn't want to be beaten to market; the cameras themselves sucked, but Canon were at least driven.

I guess everyone's recollection of history varies.

As I recall, in the late sixties to early 70s, Nikon dominated the professional photojournalism market (which was then the major market for SLRs) Canon was a quality maker of SLRs for consumers, but there were many others. Pentax was the major player with low cost models and they seemed to dominate the consumer market. Nikon barely looked at the consumer market and I believe they used the Nikkormat brand name to separate the consumer products from the professional. At the time, the biggest technological change was the inclusion of a meter built into the camera, with the first ones having the metering sensor located on the body of the camera.

Canon elected to enter the professional market with the F1. When I purchased mine around 1977 I was working on a small newspaper and the market was almost completely dominated by Nikon. Everyone looked down on Canon. I chose Canon for the cost. I could get a professional body and four lenses for the same price as a Nikon and three lenses. My previous camera was a Konica which, as an aside, was the first SLR that had autoexposure. It preceded the Canon AE-1 by several years, but as often happens with technology, being first isn't as important as being good at marketing.

In my recollection, it was the introduction of the AE-1 that really set Canon on the road to world domination, since consumers no longer had to worry about proper exposure and could concentrate on focusing. Those who never used a manual camera cannot imagine what a game changer that was. Nikon was slow to adopt autoexposure and paid a price for that.

At that point, I changed careers as even then the supply of newspaper photographers far exceed the demand and I was tired of being poor.

I kept my F1 and lenses and they served me well into the 2000s when I took up photography again in the digital age.

That's my recollection.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I guess everyone's recollection of history varies.

As I recall, in the late sixties to early 70s, Nikon dominated the professional photojournalism market (which was then the major market for SLRs) Canon was a quality maker of SLRs for consumers, but there were many others. Pentax was the major player with low cost models and they seemed to dominate the consumer market. Nikon barely looked at the consumer market and I believe they used the Nikkormat brand name to separate the consumer products from the professional. At the time, the biggest technological change was the inclusion of a meter built into the camera, with the first ones having the metering sensor located on the body of the camera.

Canon elected to enter the professional market with the F1. When I purchased mine around 1977 I was working on a small newspaper and the market was almost completely dominated by Nikon. Everyone looked down on Canon. I chose Canon for the cost. I could get a professional body and four lenses for the same price as a Nikon and three lenses. My previous camera was a Konica which, as an aside, was the first SLR that had autoexposure. It preceded the Canon AE-1 by several years, but as often happens with technology, being first isn't as important as being good at marketing.

In my recollection, it was the introduction of the AE-1 that really set Canon on the road to world domination, since consumers no longer had to worry about proper exposure and could concentrate on focusing. Those who never used a manual camera cannot imagine what a game changer that was. Nikon was slow to adopt autoexposure and paid a price for that.

At that point, I changed careers as even then the supply of newspaper photographers far exceed the demand and I was tired of being poor.

I kept my F1 and lenses and they served me well into the 2000s when I took up photography again in the digital age.

That's my recollection.

Those were the days. That's what I recall. Bought an Ftb followed by an F1 that never failed and finally got sold out of embarrassment.

Jack

 

[BurningPlatform]

6400 eur in finland. Nope sound like 6099 is the tax free price…

A lesson in VAT calculation: 6400/1,24 = 5161,29

 

[SonicStudios]

Curious why a full-size HDMI 2.1 port wasn't part of the new design, hopefully this is part of the R1

 

[john1970]

Yes, I understand that, and in the context of the R3, I wonder if folk who are accustomed to 1 level performance will be a little disappointed in the AF and that's why I was watching to see if Quad pixel would be a reality. Think of it this way - you drive with power assist brakes and happen to buy an old classic. You step on the brake and nearly have a fit - no problem, just step harder.

Jack

I suspect that quad pixel might become a feature on the R1. It would definitely set it apart and be a much needed refinement in mirrorless AF technology. I would hope for a R1 no later than Q1 2024 for the summer 2024 Olympics.

 

[aceflibble]

I guess everyone's recollection of history varies.

[...]

That's my recollection.

If you're only talking about the professional market, yes, you are mostly correct. Nikon was 'the' system when it came to pro use and Canon was very much secondary around the world, and in a few countries third after Pentax. (Though it should be noted that the Canon F-1 you mention was only a new attempt as far as the FD rebranding was concerned, and they had been producing pro-level SLR bodies for about eight years before that with the FL branding, including models with very rudimentary metering and automatic aperture.)
However, I was talking about the company overall, not just the pro market, hence why I mention things like the Canonet series.

 

[aceflibble]

Curious why a full-size HDMI 2.1 port wasn't part of the new design, hopefully this is part of the R1

It's always a tight squeeze to fit everything into bodies like this and HDMI out is nowhere near as important for these sorts of cameras as ethernet, full-size USB, and robust wi-fi/bluetooth. I imagine Canon figured putting a full HDMI port in would have taken up too much space better reserved for something else, interferred with heat routing, etc. This, the 1D, Nikon's D6, etc, are always a matter of prioritising the most critical specifications for the pros who most rely on these bodies with few other alternatives. The sort of people who really need full HDMI out have many options and tend to not buy these sorts of bodies anyway; the people who need ethernet out need this body to prioritise them.

 

[Mikehit]

It lines up with what I've experienced with the 1D X III, R5 and R6.
The very nature of how mirrorless focuses vs SLRs means that, until there is a significant breakthrough which likely won't be for a few generations, the autofocus of the very best SLRs will remain better for tracking subjects in complicated 3D situations with a lot of depth in the frame, assuming the body and lenses are calibrated together correctly, and the lens has an aperture big enough to take advantage of the SLR's many dual-cross-type focus points. The other end of this is that mirrorless is of course much more accurate when focusing on 2D scenes and don't require lenses and bodies to be calibrated together. Dual pixel focusing helps mirrorless a bit, but it's not enough of an increase in depth (not even a millimeter) to help if the camera has totally missed the subject to begin with.
Without going into the full breakdown, the quickest and simplest way I'd describe it (which I'm sure will make some of the more pedantic techbros here irate) is that SLRs 'see' in 3D while mirrorless 'sees' in 2D. The more complex depth—the 'more 3D'—you have in the frame the more the advantage goes to SLRs, and vice-versa.

It's going to be a long time before mirrorless becomes the more common design for professional sports and wildlife shooters. Sports and wildlife aren't the 2D subjects that mirrorless accels at. I'm loving mirrorless for portraits, any studio work really, and the occasional slower insect on my walks, but when it comes to hectic action crisscrossing all over the place, whether that's a person in a team sport or one animal in a herd, the Canon 1D X III and Nikon D500 and D6 are still my top picks.

A very interesting comment. However, I can't help thinking of Arash Hazeghi who specialises in photographing raptors in flight and has switched from Canon (1Dx2) to Nikon (D5) to Sony (A1, A9)- he is very demanding of AF performance so I am trying to square this with your comments about the limitations of how MILC AF works.

 

[gavinz]

Very helpful video. I wear glasses so I wonder about the eye AF drive working with them on.

 

[Hector1970]

A very interesting comment. However, I can't help thinking of Arash Hazeghi who specialises in photographing raptors in flight and has switched from Canon (1Dx2) to Nikon (D5) to Sony (A1, A9)- he is very demanding of AF performance so I am trying to square this with your comments about the limitations of how MILC AF works.

I also am not convinced by that comment . The 1DXIII focusing while good is still limited at times. I’d expect the R3 to be better than the 1DXIII at locking on to moving objects.

 

[bbasiaga]

I also am not convinced by that comment . The 1DXIII focusing while good is still limited at times. I’d expect the R3 to be better than the 1DXIII at locking on to moving objects.

Yes, i find it interesting as well. Recently I've been researching the R6 (finally bought it, it arrived today!), and there is a long list of content creators in the sports and wildlife area out there who have described their pro-series DSLRs as gathering dust since they went to the high end mirrorless stuff. One one of the other camera forums I hang out on, there are some high profile birders who have done the same.

I'm sure the person who responded to my original post see it the way he does for a reason. And there is a difference between the cross type DSLR points, and the DPAF mirrorless systems. But my impression is that mirrorless will be replacing DSLRs in all major photographic endeavors much sooner than 'a long time' from now.

Brian

 

[Chig]

Just like everyone else, I won't be getting my R3 until the first batch of bodies is released given I am not a Social Media influencer of any "influence" at all. But, I am a professional bird photographer who has been shooting for almost 30 years and I have a YT channel at Whistling Wings Photography. I have done quite a few videos on the R5 and I will be doing bird photography centric reviews and set up videos of/for the R3 once I have had time to work with it a bit. So, if interested, I would be honored if you would visit my channel. Who knows, I might even provide some useful information; which does happen from time to time.

Hi Ron,
I enjoy your videos and I'd very interested to see how the R3 compares to the R5 for bird photography.

I do wonder how the lower mp will work and if the R3 has an edge in lower light which makes up for this and whether it'll handle smaller apertures better with adding tele converters , etc.
Cheers
Noel

 

[Chig]

5000 plus 20% from VAT (Value Added Tax) gives 6000. But we may consider we are fooled in a way, indeed ...

Yep, and at least if you get sick in europe you don't have to worry about going bankrupt paying for a medical bill like in the US

 

[tron]

He said, in some situations, and my experience mirrors that. Others of a more technical mind can explain it better than I can, but there are situations when the R5 seems to go wildly out of focus and is unable to locate a subject.

From what I have read, it has something to do with how the R5 acquires the initial focusing point vs. how a DSLR selects the initial area to focus. I've experienced it primarily with small birds in trees. With a DSLR, I see the bird, initiate autofocus and the camera gets me in the right vicinity, allowing me to quickly refine the focus by zeroing in on the bird. With an R5 I have had a number of experiences where I spot a bird, begin the autofocus and the camera selects a focus point that is far to the back or front of the bird and I have completely lost the bird, which flies off before I can find it again.

I had the same experience a few times (not always of course) which makes me more comfortable with 5DsR, D500 and D850 rather than R5 for birding.

 

[FramerMCB]

Well it sounds like you can save the Eye focus calibration settings to a card (per the DP Review early look at the pre-production version). So my guess is that you can save other settings.

 

[SHAMwow]

I never thought I would say this, but I learned the most from Jared Polin's review. For instance, the focal length now being visible in the viewfinder, and the customizable Q menu are welcome features that I have not seen mentioned by others.

I say this a lot on forums, but if you can see past Jared's gags and stuff, he easily has some of the best previews/reviews on gear on Youtube. Most other review or gear channels are the spec regurgitation, or a later review for clicks based on the internet consensus on the camera. I find Jared always mentions stuff I actually care about. And has decent photos and scenarios to showcase rather than some dumb pinboard, random street light, etc. I love all the hate he threw Canon's way between the 5D IV and stopped with the R5/R6. They deserved it. And now he's doing the same for Nikon until they catch up. I've always found him fair.

 

[koenkooi]

I say this a lot on forums, but if you can see past Jared's gags and stuff, he easily has some of the best previews/reviews on gear on Youtube. Most other review or gear channels are the spec regurgitation, or a later review for clicks based on the internet consensus on the camera. I find Jared always mentions stuff I actually care about. And has decent photos and scenarios to showcase rather than some dumb pinboard, random street light, etc. I love all the hate he threw Canon's way between the 5D IV and stopped with the R5/R6. They deserved it. And now he's doing the same for Nikon until they catch up. I've always found him fair.

And he's one of the few reviewers doing "1 year later" items to talk about how a camera performed over a full year of use and updates.

 

[Pierre Lagarde]

Yep, and at least if you get sick in europe you don't have to worry about going bankrupt paying for a medical bill like in the US

Well, indeed, and even if I love the country, I won't leave France to live in the US...
We french are used to be ranting anyway (and perhaps that's one of the reason we still have some good social things left here )...