Review: Canon EOS R3 final review by DPReviewTV

[neuroanatomist]

What makes you think so?

You keep using the word precise or precision when you mean accurate or accuracy. Precision is repeatability, accuracy is closeness to true. An AF system that focuses on exactly the same spot 50 times in a row is highly precise. If that spot is 2 m behind where the camera is supposed to focus, the AF system is not accurate.

I have never claimed it does.

However, when you only sample every second pixel in the vertical direction for the vertical phase difference, you shouldn't expect to be able to achieve pixel-precise focusing on horizontal lines in the general case.

Groups of pixels are used for DPAF, you’re never going to get pixel-level accuracy. FYI, the Canon patent has double rows.

 

[Kit.]

You keep using the word precise or precision when you mean accurate or accuracy. Precision is repeatability, accuracy is closeness to true. An AF system that focuses on exactly the same spot 50 times in a row is highly precise. If that spot is 2 m behind where the camera is supposed to focus, the AF system is not accurate.

And what makes you think that I don't mean precision in this sense?

Groups of pixels are used for DPAF, you’re never going to get pixel-level accuracy. FYI, the Canon patent has double rows.

View attachment 201349

That's even worse. Consider a horisontal border that needs to be focused on between the first and the second row (i.e. is projected there when the sensor is in focus).

 

[john1970]

What feature would tempt you to upgrade from your new R3 to a R1?

For me it would have to be a set of features and not a single feature. QPAF and 80 MP vs. 20 MP pixel binning both in RAW would be two features that would make me consider upgrading. For me the R3 checks a lot of boxes (low high ISO noise, 14 bit RAW @ 30 fps, excellent ergonomics) so the R1 will have to be spectacular.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And what makes you think that I don't mean precision in this sense?

Do you? So you’d prefer a camera that missed focus by the exact same amount with every shot to one that nailed focus most of the time?

That's even worse. Consider a horisontal border that needs to be focused on between the first and the second row (i.e. is projected there when the sensor is in focus).

A horizontal border that is so narrow it doesn’t span a two-pixel gap? Assuming the R1 has an AA filter, that’s likely unresolvable. Sounds like you’re caught up in the theory of the process, not the actual use.

 

[Viggo]

Forkert tråd å klage i, Viggo.

Not at all, this is a thread with loads of activity

 

[entoman]

I'd hoped for that with the R3 but I'll save my money for the R1 but only if Canon doesn't release a 12mp R1 that shoots really fast poor quality images. It's funny how the competition can produce a high resolution camera but Canon can't?

I think Canon are absolutely capable of producing a high resolution (pro) camera. The fact that they have produced both the R5 and the R3 proves that to be true. The fact is that they have *chosen* not to launch it yet. Clearly the R3 is a test-bed for the new eye-control AF, and has been deliberately kept to 24MP for market segmentation purposes. They have held back on the R1 while they learn more about how to perfect the eye-control AF. The R1, when it is eventually released, will almost certainly have all of the best features of the R5 and R3, and probably a couple of nice surprises thrown in.

What concerns me more is that Canon have overpriced the R3 in comparison with the Sony a1 and more importantly perhaps the Nikon Z9. The number of people who will switch systems is probably very low, as most prospective purchasers of R3 and R1 will already be heavily invested in Canon glass. But they'll certainly question whether Canon is taking them for a very expensive (some would say extortionate) ride, if they compare with Sony or Nikon. And it's not just the bodies that are overpriced - just look at the price of the Canon 100-500mm and compare it to the considerably cheaper Sony 200-600mm. I think most sports and wildlife photographers would prefer the extra 100mm at the tele end, as chosen by Sony. The Sony has a wider max aperture too.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And it's not just the bodies that are overpriced - just look at the price of the Canon 100-500mm and compare it to the considerably cheaper Sony 200-600mm.

I bet Canon will sell far more RF 100-400 lenses than Sony sells 200-600 (or Canon sells 100-500).

 

[David - Sydney]

I bet Canon will sell far more RF 100-400 lenses than Sony sells 200-600 (or Canon sells 100-500).

EF vs RF 100-400?
How would we know the sale volume of a particular lens from Canon or any OEM?
Clearly there are shortages so Canon will sell all the RF100-500mm that they can make so price becomes somewhat irrelevant.

 

[David - Sydney]

What concerns me more is that Canon have overpriced the R3 in comparison with the Sony a1 and more importantly perhaps the Nikon Z9. The number of people who will switch systems is probably very low, as most prospective purchasers of R3 and R1 will already be heavily invested in Canon glass. But they'll certainly question whether Canon is taking them for a very expensive (some would say extortionate) ride, if they compare with Sony or Nikon. And it's not just the bodies that are overpriced - just look at the price of the Canon 100-500mm and compare it to the considerably cheaper Sony 200-600mm. I think most sports and wildlife photographers would prefer the extra 100mm at the tele end, as chosen by Sony. The Sony has a wider max aperture too.

Canon need to stay profitable to release all the new goodies that we are rumouring about
If they believe that their users see value in their comparatively expensive system then they have made the right strategic decision.
But that also means that migration from Canon to Sony/Fuji/Nikon etc is quite possible as it isn't the best value for money choice. Reducing price in the future (or cashbacks etc) with plentiful supply is easy. Increasing prices are harder.
The Sony 200-600mm is also heavier and slower and bigger than the RF100-500mm. I know which I would (and have) chosen.

 

[neuroanatomist]

EF vs RF 100-400?
How would we know the sale volume of a particular lens from Canon or any OEM?
Clearly there are shortages so Canon will sell all the RF100-500mm that they can make so price becomes somewhat irrelevant.

I’m talking about the RF 100-400 vs RF 100-500 or Sony FE 200-600.

I stated, “I bet,” but of course we won’t ever have actual data. We can make guesses based on things like Amazon sales rankings, but they’re just guesses.

Right now on Amazon, the RF 100-400 is #24, the RF 100-500 is #31, and the Sony FE 200-600 is #34.

 

[entoman]

I bet Canon will sell far more RF 100-400 lenses than Sony sells 200-600 (or Canon sells 100-500).

Absolutely true, but that's due mostly to Canon's marketing expertise, and the simple fact that there are vastly greater numbers of Canon owners out here. If the number of Canon and Sony users was similar, it's likely that the Sony lens would sell in greater quantities, because it's considerably cheaper. Most of the folk who buy these super-telezooms will be sports or wildlife photographers, and I'd wager that most would find a 200-600mm focal length more useful than 100-500mm. IOt would be rather nice if Canon brought out a 200-600mm themselves, but they'd probably charge double what Sony sells theirs for.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Absolutely true, but that's due mostly to Canon's marketing expertise, and the simple fact that there are vastly greater numbers of Canon owners out here. If the number of Canon and Sony users was similar, it's likely that the Sony lens would sell in greater quantities, because it's considerably cheaper.

I think you misread. The RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 costs $650.

 

[Bert63]

I try very hard to like these guys, and when I take off my objectivity hat it's very easy to do, but in all honesty they are all over the map.

 

[entoman]

The Sony 200-600mm is also heavier and slower and bigger than the RF100-500mm. I know which I would (and have) chosen.

Sony 200-600mm F5.6-6.3
Canon 100-500mm F4.5-7.1

At the tele end, where it matters most, the Canon is half a stop slower than the Sony.

The Sony isn't as compact admittedly, and yes it is heavier, so the Canon scores for handheld use. On a gimbal, or when used on a beanbag from a vehicle (as per safaris), that advantage is lost. I think it's probably true that most users of telezooms tend to use the longer focal lengths a lot more than the short end. I can't speak for sports photographers, but birders and wildlife photographers would I think mostly prefer the focal length range of the Sony.

 

[David - Sydney]

I’m talking about the RF 100-400 vs RF 100-500 or Sony FE 200-600.

I stated, “I bet,” but of course we won’t ever have actual data. We can make guesses based on things like Amazon sales rankings, but they’re just guesses.

Right now on Amazon, the RF 100-400 is #24, the RF 100-500 is #31, and the Sony FE 200-600 is #34.

There is the Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS as well of course

 

[neuroanatomist]

There is the Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS as well of course

And Sigma, Tamron and Fuji 100-400 lenses. And a Nikon 80-400mm. What was your point?

 

[David - Sydney]

Sony 200-600mm F5.6-6.3
Canon 100-500mm F4.5-7.1

At the tele end, where it matters most, the Canon is half a stop slower than the Sony.

The Sony isn't as compact admittedly, and yes it is heavier, so the Canon scores for handheld use. On a gimbal, or when used on a beanbag from a vehicle (as per safaris), that advantage is lost. I think it's probably true that most users of telezooms tend to use the longer focal lengths a lot more than the short end. I can't speak for sports photographers, but birders and wildlife photographers would I think mostly prefer the focal length range of the Sony.

If only that both lenses could be used interchangeably between Sony and Canon systems and then it would be a valid comparison
Strangely enough, I will be shooting waterfalls tomorrow in the Blue Mountains with my EF16-35mm/4 but also taking my RF100-500mm in case of telephoto landscape and perhaps an occasional bit of wildlife. Weight, size and not fast aperture are the key criteria in tomorrow's use case. Starting at 200mm would be too much in my case.

 

[David - Sydney]

And Sigma, Tamron and Fuji 100-400 lenses. And a Nikon 80-400mm. What was your point?

"I bet Canon will sell far more RF 100-400 lenses than Sony sells 200-600 (or Canon sells 100-500)."
"Right now on Amazon, the RF 100-400 is #24, the RF 100-500 is #31, and the Sony FE 200-600 is #34."

We should include all the Canon and Sony lenses in the focal range if we are making comparisons on volumes in a market segment

 

[entoman]

I think you misread. The RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 costs $650.

Come on neuro, that's comparing apricots with carrots.

The RF 100-400mm is a budget lens, not built to the same standard as an L version.
It's a cheap option but can in no way be compared with the very solid, optically superb Sony 200-600mm, or with the EF 100-400mm or RF 100-500mm.

Here are the current UK prices:

Sony 200-600mm - £1329 (including £100 cashback)
Canon 100-500mm - £2979 (no cashback available)

I've handled both of these lenses while on safari in Kenya a couple of weeks ago. Build quality looks about the same to me. Optically both are superb, I doubt if anyone could tell images from them apart. The Canon is lighter and can be fitted in a standard rucksack. The weight is pretty irrelevant if the lens is on a gimbal, or is being used on a beanbag in a vehicle. I had been thinking about getting the Canon 100-500mm to replace my EF100-400mmL, but if I wasn't already tied into the Canon system (2 bodies, 8 lenses, 3 flashguns), or if I had £10K going spare, a Sony a1 and 200-600mm would be extremely tempting.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Come on neuro, that's comparing apricots with carrots.

The RF 100-400mm is a budget lens, not built to the same standard as an L version.
It's a cheap option but can in no way be compared with the very solid, optically superb Sony 200-600mm, or with the EF or RF 100-400mm.

Here are the current UK prices:

Sony 200-600mm - £1329 (including £100 cashback)
Canon 100-500mm - £2979 (no cashback available)

I've handled both of these lenses while on safari in Kenya a couple of weeks ago. Build quality looks about the same to me. Optically both are superb, I doubt if anyone could tell images from them apart. The Canon is lighter and can be fitted in a standard rucksack. The weight is pretty irrelevant of the lens is on a gimbal, or is being used on a beanbag in a vehicle. I had been thinking about getting the Canon 100-500mm to replace my EF100-400mmL, but if I wasn't already tied into the Canon system (2 bodies, 8 lenses, 3 flashguns), or if I has £10K going spare, a Sony a1 and 200-600mm would be extremely tempting.

Yes, the RF 100-400 is inexpensive. @AlanF has shown it’s optically very good, making it a real bargain. There’s a lot of overlap in the ranges, the use cases are similar, so it’s a reasonable comparison. It’s not as if I said the 50/1.8 will sell better.

In the US, the Canon 100-500 is $2800 and the Sony 200-600 is $1900, that’s a very different scenario than UK pricing (and the US is a much larger market).