Is the EOS R3 too rich for your blood? Refurbished Canon EOS R5 and EOS R6 bodies are in stock

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
4,567
2,909
If you don't answer right away, folks tend to do their own googling. Not always
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,156
860
Davidson, NC
No money left for the R3.
After my second Moderna covid shot, I felt an irresistible urge to buy a huge number of Microsoft products, and to plaster my living-room with framed photographs of :love:Bill Gates :love:.
No longer interested in Canon gear at all. If I only understood why.
PS: I've also started a collection of tin-foil hats.
There is a kind of plastic sheeting that is much more effective than tin foil. I saw a guy on TV this morning who sells caps with its lining. A woman told how her brain is much clearer now that she wears the cap, and she is no longer bothered by alien telepathy.
 

masterpix

EOS RP
Jun 29, 2016
293
205
Well, I was waiting for the R3 spec, and to be honest, it placed a dilemma for me: one one side it has 30fps, it have GPS and it is fast, however, it lack with MP and I am not sure how the eye tracking will make wild life pictures faster, and by no means I consider a tiger as a fast moving vehicle. Then on the other side the R5 which have 20fps, GPS I can connect to my phone, and the AF system is as good. beside it has 45MP which allows me to use some EFs glass and not lower myself from the about 18MP of my 7D (which I replace now) and it is 2000$ less.

I would like to hear what Hamlet have to say about that...
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,267
1,356
There is a kind of plastic sheeting that is much more effective than tin foil. I saw a guy on TV this morning who sells caps with its lining. A woman told how her brain is much clearer now that she wears the cap, and she is no longer bothered by alien telepathy.
I need the address, QUICK !!!!!!!
I am bigly abrain under alien attack!
 

masterpix

EOS RP
Jun 29, 2016
293
205
Continue reading...Have to say that when I compare the R3 to the R5 in wildlife photography (birds) I didn't see that of a difference that justify the wait (sorry canon but the R3 is not for wildlife), so I got the R5 and to say to truth, it is way beyond my expectations. The AF is excellent (well not always capture those fast moving things) but when it does (90% of the time) you get something like this:
R5_01661M.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: slclick

masterpix

EOS RP
Jun 29, 2016
293
205
I must say this, feeling a strange compulsion to say it here!

I am about to jump ship to Sony products. Just trying to figure out the fiscal damage done by making the transition. I have been waiting for a Canon camera that is geared toward the stills photographer with high resolution without the need for a telescope to see the astronomical price tag. We were told at one point that Canon had an 85mp camera in development . . . you know, sort of 5DS ish. Canon has the capacity but not the will, apparently content to let Sony do the heavy lifting. If a newby asks for recommendations I send them looking for the broader, more capable Sony lineup. If Canon didn't have other revenue streams they would be struggling to catch up just like Nikon.
There is the right camera to the right photographer, I would not bash so much why one would like to shift from one maker to another. And you are right, promoting Sony cameras in a Canon discussion group is very strange... :)
 

masterpix

EOS RP
Jun 29, 2016
293
205
-The R5 at 45 MP has similar effective resolution to the 5DS at 50 MP, reviews have proven this out.
-The highest MP body of Sony's only gets you a 16% increase in linear resolution vs Canon.
-Canon will almost certainly still come out with a higher MP body. In Fact, I'd bet on it by end of next year.

You would be better served by spending money on a trip to a place where you could take great photos, than trading in all of your gear for that of another manufacturer, unless you're just one of those weird Sony fanboy camera collectors that doesn't actually shoot.
I would not go as far to insult the guy for not taking pictures. BUt spending the money on a better canon lense will probbaly do him good. (Taken with R5, EF100-400 reduced to 6MP)
 

Attachments

  • R5_03572S.jpg
    R5_03572S.jpg
    5 MB · Views: 19

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
239
498
I must say I have a strange compulsion to say this. What you write makes no sense. Of the 3 mirrorless brands that have high MP cameras (Sony A1, Canon R5, Nikon Z7) the Sony has by far the more astronomical price tag. For stills especially, the R5 and Nikon Z7 or Z7 II are far better choices, as Sony's only real advantage is the 30 fps. On price alone, Nikon's Z7 would be the camera I recommend to newbies. Saying Sony has the broader, more capable lineup is ridiculous. Looking for best inexpensive mirrorless FF? The Nikon Z5 is a far better stills camera than anything Sony might offer. Looking for higher MPs? As mentioned, especially for the price, Canon's R5 and Nikon's Z7 are much better value for the money, with Nikon's Z7 arguably having the best IQ for stills.
I had vowed not to defend Sony again, but you discuss high MP cameras without mentioning the Sony 61MP a7r IV, which at $3500 ($3200 educational) is less than the R5. Now, I have no love for the r IV, but it is high rez even if it's difficult to perceive the difference (a huge disappointment for me).

But the Sony cost savings is not in purchasing camera bodies. Rather it is in the lens selection at every price range--which neither Canon nor Nikon are going to match anytime soon as long they make it difficult for third-party lens makers to produce compatible lenses. Now, I've left Sony for a variety of reasons--I prefer the R5 and find the RF-mount lenses better than corresponding Sony lenses--but it has cost me a king's ransom to make the move. I could not begin to afford top-quality RF lenses on a budget. Once you move down-tier, then the broad Sony lens selection is incomparable.

Thus, if a newbie asks me for recommendations, I tell them I prefer Canon, but it is very expensive. Sony, by contrast does provide many more affordable options. After all, it is about the lenses.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,812
4,231
<…>
I could not begin to afford top-quality RF lenses on a budget. Once you move down-tier, then the broad Sony lens selection is incomparable.

Thus, if a newbie asks me for recommendations, I tell them I prefer Canon, but it is very expensive. Sony, by contrast does provide many more affordable options. After all, it is about the lenses.
For a newbie really wanting FF, I would not hesitate to recommend an EOS RP, RF 24-105/4-7.1. The combo at US list prices is $1400. If they want more reach, adding the RF 100-400 brings the kit cost to $2050. What FF Sony kit comprising current, new items would you recommend that would cover 24-400mm and cost less than that?

For someone wanting a one-lens superzoom solution, Sony’s RF 24-240 costs $150 (17%) more than Canon’s. Sony’s 50/1.8 is $50 (25%) more expensive. Canon’s 85/2 portrait/macro lens is only $30 (5%) more expensive than the Sigma 70/2.8 for FE, and IMO 1:2 mag and f/2 is more versatile than 1:1 and f/2.8.

While it is unarguably true that there is currently a broader and more diverse range of lenses for the FE mount, for someone starting out in the FF MILC arena it seems to me that Canon provides the most important lenses at a lower overall entry price.

As a side note, that same $2050 for an RP and 24-400mm two lens kit is what I spent on camera + lenses as a ‘newbie’ to DSLRs back in 2009 – I gave myself a budget of $2500, and that got me a T1i/500D, 17-55/2.8 and 85/1.8; the remaining $450 was spent on a Manfrotto ballhead and CF tripod. A FF kit today for the same cost…that’s progress!
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger