Review: Canon EOS R3 final review by DPReviewTV

john1970

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
442
532
Northeastern US
. 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.
Frankly, I prefer the 1.5 lb lighter weight of the Canon and I would question if a third of a stop aperture (f6.3 vs. f7.1) makes a significant improvement.
 

ozturert

EOS 90D
Jan 16, 2019
141
109
I love these guys but it is obvious they don't have any experience with sports or similar photography where this camera will excel.
 
Jul 21, 2021
3
5
I think it's interesting that they keep talking about comparing the R3 to the apparent Nikon & Sony flagships... I don't think Canon is touting the R3 as their "flagship" camera, just happens to be their latest.. We'll see what happens if and when Canon launches an R1 camera..
 

RayValdez360

Soon to be the greatest.
Jun 6, 2012
746
510
39
Philadelphia
I think it's interesting that they keep talking about comparing the R3 to the apparent Nikon & Sony flagships... I don't think Canon is touting the R3 as their "flagship" camera, just happens to be their latest.. We'll see what happens if and when Canon launches an R1 camera..
Actually my issue is that they didnt try to compare it with the R5 or the R. At least to show how much the system changed since the R
 

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
589
492
So, far from being actually a 'final review', DPR now publish this:

canon-eos-r3-studio-scene-published

"we can see off the bat that the R3 turns in competitive detail in its class. Differences between it and other cameras with similar resolution will predominantly come down to their anti-aliasing filters".

On DR: "We were curious as to what extent – if any – the EOS R3's super-fast electronic shutter might be adding noise, and the answer appears to be 'not much'. You have to get into the super-deep shadows, pushing between 5 and 6 stops, to really see a difference."

Apparently there's still a 'full review' coming ...
 

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
359
770
...
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.
I have read numerous photographers who have used both, say they prefer the R5 to the A1. Based on that, I would say the A1 is way overpriced. it is also not an integrated grip body and almost certainly nowhere near as rugged. It is considered a flagship, only becuase Sony does not have an actual comparable flagship to either the R3 or the Z9, in my opinion. If the eye-controlled AF works well, than it is the Sony and the Nikon that can't compare with the Canon R3. It seems that the amount of MPs is the determining factor for pricing according to many, which seems quite ludicrous.

Yes, Canon L lenses are expensive, but they seem to priced in the same range as the Nikon S lenses - their highest end mirrorless lenses. If the Sony 200-600 is cheaper, then you can be sure that is a lower quality lens. I haven't tried it so I don't know, but I have tried the 100-500 and it is the sharpest zoom lens in that category that I have ever used. it is also over 700 grams lighter than the Sony, which for many users makes it the more desirable choice - certainly that would be a huge factor for me. No way I would buy an over 2,000 g lens for my wildlife excursions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chaitanya

Frodo

EOS RP
Nov 3, 2012
429
109
So, far from being actually a 'final review', DPR now publish this:

canon-eos-r3-studio-scene-published

"we can see off the bat that the R3 turns in competitive detail in its class. Differences between it and other cameras with similar resolution will predominantly come down to their anti-aliasing filters".

On DR: "We were curious as to what extent – if any – the EOS R3's super-fast electronic shutter might be adding noise, and the answer appears to be 'not much'. You have to get into the super-deep shadows, pushing between 5 and 6 stops, to really see a difference."

Apparently there's still a 'full review' coming ...
There was discussion earlier about the R3 vs R6 sensors. I downloaded the RAW files for the R3 and R6 from DPReview, imported into LR and exported as 5500x3667 jpgs (lightly bigger than native R3 resolution. The biggest differences that I noted is that at higher ISO (6400 and 12800), the R3 files are slightly underexposed compared to the R6 files. Autotone in LR gives the R6 file -0.17 and the R3 files +0.17. The R3 files seemed more neutral in colour and there may have been some false colour generated by up-resing R6 files. These are relatively minor issues. Looking at resolution, noise and DR from those charts, I'd say that the difference is less than those mentioned before (exposure and colour). Certainly I don't see a substantial difference in IQ that might be attributed to the change in technology (or the slight increase in resolution).
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
477
530
UK
I have read numerous photographers who have used both, say they prefer the R5 to the A1.
Swings and roundabouts really. For me, the R5 does a great job and has very good ergonomics, but the A1 *possibly* has a slight edge when it comes to subject acquisition and tracking. The R5 is a bargain, the A1 is overpriced (but so IMO is the R3, especially since the launch of the Z9).

If the Sony 200-600 is cheaper, then you can be sure that is a lower quality lens.
I've physically handled both, and they seem comparable in build quality. I don't know how they compare optically, as I've only seen the results from the 200-600mm, which are excellent. The price difference is huge, but I won't be getting the Sony simply because I can't justify the overall cost of switching systems, and as I said, I'm pretty happy with the R5. I guess what I'm really whining about is the choice of focal lengths. For bird photography the extra 100mm at the tele end is really valuable, and the short end far less so. The Sigma 150-600mm Sport in EF mount is probably the best match for me, but it does seem to have a few reliability issues.

... it is also over 700 grams lighter than the Sony, which for many users makes it the more desirable choice - certainly that would be a huge factor for me. No way I would buy an over 2,000 g lens for my wildlife excursions.
Yes, a lighter lens would be nice (although perhaps not the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary, which seems like the Sports version to get very mixed reviews), but I already have EF 100-400mm L and RF 800mm F11 for handheld work. What I want is to be able to encompass as closely as possible the focal length range of both of those lenses so that I'm not constantly swapping back and forth between lenses when shooting from a safari jeep in dusty Africa (although I swapped lenses maybe a dozen times each day in those conditions a couple of weeks ago, and didn't get a single dust speck on the sensor of my R5).
 
  • Like
Reactions: maulanawale

maulanawale

EOS M6 Mark II
May 25, 2021
77
142
Swings and roundabouts really. For me, the R5 does a great job and has very good ergonomics, but the A1 *possibly* has a slight edge when it comes to subject acquisition and tracking. The R5 is a bargain, the A1 is overpriced (but so IMO is the R3, especially since the launch of the Z9).


I've physically handled both, and they seem comparable in build quality. I don't know how they compare optically, as I've only seen the results from the 200-600mm, which are excellent. The price difference is huge, but I won't be getting the Sony simply because I can't justify the overall cost of switching systems, and as I said, I'm pretty happy with the R5. I guess what I'm really whining about is the choice of focal lengths. For bird photography the extra 100mm at the tele end is really valuable, and the short end far less so. The Sigma 150-600mm Sport in EF mount is probably the best match for me, but it does seem to have a few reliability issues.


Yes, a lighter lens would be nice (although perhaps not the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary, which seems like the Sports version to get very mixed reviews), but I already have EF 100-400mm L and RF 800mm F11 for handheld work. What I want is to be able to encompass as closely as possible the focal length range of both of those lenses so that I'm not constantly swapping back and forth between lenses when shooting from a safari jeep in dusty Africa (although I swapped lenses maybe a dozen times each day in those conditions a couple of weeks ago, and didn't get a single dust speck on the sensor of my R5).
I had the 200-600 when I used to shoot Sony and it was a decent lens, it didn't get along well with my A7RIV though.
I liked that it is internal focusing but that makes it rather large for what it offers in terms of FL and aperture.
I always had the impression that they made it big and white to make it even more appealing to lower budgets (like mine) because it does make you feel like you're shooting some serious pro level glass. Results don't necessarily match that experience though.

Reg your last paragraph, and please take this with a bucketload of salt, that's why I see the Oly 150-400F.45 TC1.25x as a very interesting lens on it's own merit, shame it's got to be paired with dated M43 sensors, because in terms of (effective) range, usability and IQ, it's a dream lens. Wish physics allowed such a lens for FF or even APS-c.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kaihp

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
477
530
UK
I had the 200-600 when I used to shoot Sony and it was a decent lens, it didn't get along well with my A7RIV though.
I liked that it is internal focusing but that makes it rather large for what it offers in terms of FL and aperture.
I always had the impression that they made it big and white to make it even more appealing to lower budgets (like mine) because it does make you feel like you're shooting some serious pro level glass. Results don't necessarily match that experience though.

Reg your last paragraph, and please take this with a bucketload of salt, that's why I see the Oly 150-400F.45 TC1.25x as a very interesting lens on it's own merit, shame it's got to be paired with dated M43 sensors, because in terms of (effective) range, usability and IQ, it's a dream lens. Wish physics allowed such a lens for FF or even APS-c.
Interesting and useful comments abhout the Sony lens, thanks.

To be honest I think that despite their thermal-expansion reducing advantage, the whole white lens thing is overstated. Regardless of whether it's done by Canon, Sony, Minolta or anyone else it's really nothing more than a marketing ploy. Nikon have stuck with black for their big primes and telezooms, so I don't see a necessity for them to be white.

In fact white lenses are a pain, because wildlife photographers like myself have to fork out for camo covers, as the bright white finish just attracts the attention of nervous animals and birds, They can spot it a mile away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maulanawale