Jeff Cable talks about what it’s like to shoot with the Canon EOS R3 as a pro

[Deleted member 381342]

'Many' is relative. The reality is that there aren't many Wildlife Photographers, so even if 'many' of that niche group use $13K lenses, it's very, very few in absolute terms. However, there are probably a reasonably large number of photographers who shoot wildlife, and very very few of them have $13K lenses.

In the context of all photographers (with a DSLR or mirrorless body), few will own a super-tele lens. If we narrow that down to wedding and events photographers, I can't imagine any of them will have a $13,000 super-tele. But if we look at sports shooters and wildlife photographers, I expect and often see many of them with a $13,000 super-tele. This isn't to say you don't have the weekend adventurer using a 200-500 f/5.6 on a Nikon D500 and getting great results for under $3000. It is saying that many wildlife photographers will have one or more of these big lenses as it is a tool of their trade as much as the f/2.8 trinity is all but expected to be in every wedding and events shooter (even if we have some outliners that use a 35+85 prime combo or any number of other variations).

And of course 'many' is relative, it is not absolute. And I don't have the data to say that there are 1 million wildlife photographers and 100,000 of those have one or more super-tele lenses and that constitutes as many. What I have is knowing and meeting up on occasion with other wildlife photographers and they'll have a 200-400 and or 600mm f/4.0 with them and when I go to a national park or someplace more exotic or if I look at the equipment the BBC are sending a documentary crew out with, they are going out with a big expensive lens or two. The same as if you look at the Olympics and see the wall of great whites, you can conclude that many sports shooters are using these lenses because there isn't anything else and you just can't get close enough to use your 70-200 f/2.8.

 

[derrald]

“Image copy command”!? Somehow I’ve never noticed that before. Is tha feature in all Canon pro and prosumer bodies? I have the R5.

This is perhaps one of the top 3 things I've learned when reading these forums. I usually skip checking out the blue menu altogether.

 

[Ozarker]

Many is not all. Are you trying to pick a fight? You don't seem to have a problem with me saying wedding photographers will be using the f/2.8 trinity (which is also a rather expensive set.)

Wow. I just realized how batcrap crazy my interpretation of what you said is. Please accept my sincerest apologies.

 

[Atlasman]

I’m not sure there’s really a trade-off between performance and resolution. The performance is high, the resolution is lower but that was a declarative choice by Canon since the R5 clearly shows at least 30 MP was possible at 30 fps.

Regardless, 24 MP is not enough for you. What did you do before there were 24 MP cameras?

30MP and 30fps was possible, but not without compromising the video specs. I’m sure Canon didn’t want to leave the videographers out.

 

[djack41]

Well, wildlife shooters wanting to run their new $13,000 lenses will want the R3. Otherwise the lenses aren't focusing as fast as they are capable off.

Bet most will want the resolution of the R5.

 

[LSXPhotog]

I’ve shot to one card since 1Ds and it has worked just fine (for me). What really really troubles me is his remarks on the eye focus as “too slow for sports” (my words). I want a MONSTER. Not a social event camera. This needs to be addressed.

The speed of its responsiveness is adjustable. I've seen people using it where it works very well, but it's going to introduce a new learning curve of when/where/how to use it.

 

[HMC11]

I'd like to see someone with a 600mm at a wedding...

Journos at private celebrity weddings? Probably need the 800mm as well......

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Bet most will want the resolution of the R5.

Not everyone is photographing birds. Some want to capture the moment a lion downs a zebra at the end of a high speed chase. Or even just fox cubs playing outside their burrow for the first time. Just looking at a chap on Youtube, he is using the Nikon D6 and D850 for different use cases, but the D6 is the main body.

 

[docsmith]

30MP and 30fps was possible, but not without compromising the video specs. I’m sure Canon didn’t want to leave the videographers out.

Not to mention the R3 is 30 fps at 14 bit A/D conversion while the R5 20 fps at 12 bit A/D conversion. While I haven't seen an issue with the images from electronic shutter on the R5, the 24 MP of the R3 may have also allowed 14 bit conversion.

 

[Czardoom]

The two things I found most interesting from his blog post...

"My original plan was to shoot with the Canon R5 cameras as my primary cameras, and use the Canon R3 as my "test camera" for those times when I was not contractually obligated to shoot for Team USA. But that changed almost immediately! I started using the Canon R3 at the Opening Ceremony and never stopped. The Canon R5 cameras basically sat in my camera bags for most of the Olympics."

"The new Canon R3 brings all the power of the Canon 1D series to the mirrorless world, and that is a welcome addition to the Canon line-up. Canon may not like me saying this, but for anyone looking to purchase a Canon 1DX MKIII, I would recommend going with the Canon R3. I think that the R series is the future for Canon, with all the new lenses coming out for these new bodies, and the camera just performs better in so many respects."

 

[djack41]

Not everyone is photographing birds. Some want to capture the moment a lion downs a zebra at the end of a high speed chase. Or even just fox cubs playing outside their burrow for the first time. Just looking at a chap on Youtube, he is using the Nikon D6 and D850 for different use cases, but the D6 is the main body.

Bet most wildlife photographers will opt for the resolution of the R5. Read Jeff Cables article. After his review, he went to Africa and chose the R5 over the R3 for his wildlife shots. JMHO

 

[djack41]

Well, wildlife shooters wanting to run their new $13,000 lenses will want the R3. Otherwise the lenses aren't focusing as fast as they are capable off.

Good comment. But I must say the hit rate of the R5 with a 600mm F4 lll is impressive. The R5 just provides the option to crop while retaining more detail. Wish the R3 had a 45MP sensor.

 

[Emyr Evans]

Bet most wildlife photographers will opt for the resolution of the R5. Read Jeff Cables article. After his review, he went to Africa and chose the R5 over the R3 for his wildlife shots. JMHO

Not correct. Canon took the R3 back off him as soon as he finished at the Olympics. He did not have the option to take the R3 with him to Africa.

I've been a wildlife photographer for almost 40 years, the last time I was this excited about a new pre-order was the 1Diii with 10 MP. Great camera once Canon sorted the focussing issues out.

 

[melgross]

I suspect the question was about pixel peeping on-camera (aka ‘chimping’). If you shoot RAW only, what is shown on the LCD/EVF image review? The jpg thumbnail in the RAW container. That jpg is also used to generate the histogram and 'blinkies' (which is why judging exposure/clipping based on an 8-bit version conversion of the 14-bit RAW file can be a challenge).

Yes, that’s true. And as you say, it’s a problem. We’ve been requesting a RAW instead, but apparently that’s been too difficult to do. Maybe someday.

 

[docsmith]

Bet most wildlife photographers will opt for the resolution of the R5. Read Jeff Cables article. After his review, he went to Africa and chose the R5 over the R3 for his wildlife shots. JMHO

The way I read the article, I do not think he had the R3 in Africa. It sounds like he picked up a copy in Japan and likely had to return it. Then he left for Africa with the two R5's that he actually owns.

I do think higher MPs is nice for wildlife, but 24 MPs is more than the 1DX (I, II, or III) that have been used to take countless amazing wildlife images. So, higher MPs of the R5 will be better in some instances, better AF, eye-controlled AF, and higher FPS of the R3 will be better in other instances. Overall, I expect photographers that pick either camera to get excellent images. Just one may favor freezing action and the other more detailed images.

With that said, I am seeing some clean jpgs from the R3 at high ISO. I am not concluding anything yet, but there is a chance high ISO performance will also favor the R3.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Canon and other brands should just make us rip off the bandaid here…only the new format

SD has been around a long time.
The other formats keep changing.
CFExpress Type B is the present but history tells me that it is not the future.
History tells us that SD will stick around a while.
I understand why people are annoyed.
I also understand why Canon went they way that they did.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

That's it for me! Holding out for the R3ii

I could see the R3 II and R5 II still having mixed card slots.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Funnily enough, I was only thinking about this a couple of days ago.

Has Canon mentioned anything about R3 and SDexpress compatibility does anyone know?

UHS-II I believe

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I'd like to see someone with a 600mm at a wedding...

You wouldn't.
They would be too far away.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The speed of its responsiveness is adjustable. I've seen people using it where it works very well, but it's going to introduce a new learning curve of when/where/how to use it.

I doubt the Olympics is the best place to learn on the job..