The Canon EOS R3 is out in the wild

Maybe you should try out an R5 or even an R6 before making that statement. I used to feel the same way... then I made the move. Haven't missed the OVF one time. Your image is a digital copy of reality. The only difference is with mirrorless you will see exactly what that's going to look like when you hit the shutter.
Yes and no. EVF lets you preview exposure and color balance, and it's close enough to make meaningful decisions about those things. But it is by far the worst preview available between EVF, rear screen, home monitor, and the real scene (OVF). Color, contrast, and dynamic range are all way off. I have yet to see an EVF that didn't feel like a VGA monitor from the 90s. I can also still perceive some pixelization, though that varies by user.

If an EVF looked like my 4k calibrated monitor or even a good rear screen I could perhaps jump without missing an OVF. That's not the case right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
My very old camera can only do 12 fps and 14 fps without refocussing after each shot, but I hardly ever use it, because each frame reduces the life of the shutter. If you shoot in burst mode very often, the 400,000 photos that are promised for the camera are soon behind you and then you might need a new shutter for a lot of money. How will that chance with electronic shutter? Will there be no limit on the number of frames?

Also it is quite a pain to look through all those images, I once took about 1,000 photos of Rafael Nadal during a match and it takes a lot of time to find the best shots. How would that change if you have 30 fps and press the shutter button even more often? You might end up with 5,000 or 10,000 shots. Without some help of some artificial intelligence that finds the best shots, you might need days to go through all those shots. And what would you do with the lower 99% of those images? Delete them? For a photographer it is always hard to delete a photo. because you never know if you could need it again. That attitude has to change. Otherwise you will drown in images.

So far I only saw the EVF of the original EOS R at Photokina in 2018. I was not very convinced yet. Unfortunately there might not be a next Photokina any time soon. So I wonder if I have to order an R3 without having ever looked through the viewfinder. I hope there will be some Youtube videos that give me some impression of the quality.
 
Upvote 0
Eye focus is one of the more interesting advancements. And an advancement that can bump up the keeper rate with really fast primes and models. But I honestly have not had a problem nailing the eye in those situations going all the way back to the 7D. So the question becomes: how many frames of the same person with razor thin focus do I need? Does a 95% keeper rate vs. 90% really change photography for me? I would likely rank the R3's extreme low light AF capabilities (going by pre-release specs) higher than eye AF in terms of practical impact.

Some of my opinions are no doubt influenced by experience. A newbie can likely pickup an R3 and nail focus on a model's eye with a f/1.2 prime. Not as likely with a DSLR.
I recently picked up a RP at a good price, and already had an adapter, being a forward thinking guy ;)
Where I notice the difference in AF is when shooting at a wideish aperture and off centre of the frame. With the RP I can shoot with impunity at f/1.8 even well off centre. I can’t reliably do this with any of my dslrs.
 
Upvote 0
Yes and no. EVF lets you preview exposure and color balance, and it's close enough to make meaningful decisions about those things. But it is by far the worst preview available between EVF, rear screen, home monitor, and the real scene (OVF). Color, contrast, and dynamic range are all way off. I have yet to see an EVF that didn't feel like a VGA monitor from the 90s. I can also still perceive some pixelization, though that varies by user.

If an EVF looked like my 4k calibrated monitor or even a good rear screen I could perhaps jump without missing an OVF. That's not the case right now.
That really hasn't been my experience, but to each his own. I have stopped previewing my photos on the back screen on the R5 in favor of the EVF. It's just higher resolution and you don't have to deal with glare. As far as it looking like a VGA monitor, have you tried a modern EVF?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Are any RF lenses actually faster at AF tracking?

Lets see. (1) The RF interface allows for a much faster exchange of information between the lens and camera (2) The RF interface allows for the camera to supply the lens with more power (this is especially significant for larger lenses with heavy elements.)

To summarise, it isn't the lens that's necessarily faster but it is the RF system that allows for faster and more accurate focus.

Mirror blackout is preferable to continuous shooting lag which is an issue even on the R5/R6 and Sony A9s. Perhaps this will be solved with the R3.

I'll puat one in the opinion bucket as there are many who sing the praise of no blackout.

Eye focus is one of the more interesting advancements. And an advancement that can bump up the keeper rate with really fast primes and models. But I honestly have not had a problem nailing the eye in those situations going all the way back to the 7D.

Either you've not read the stories or I was opaque in my question. I was referring to the camera tracking the photographer's eye to determine what to focus on - not the camera nailing focus on an eye (a commonly talked about feature elsewhere.)

Look, I get it. You've got an EF camera plus EF lenses and you want to defend that because you're defending your own decisions to spend money on it. At the time that was the probably the right thing to do. Technology has moved on and it isn't going to wait for any of us. Newer is always going to be better - if it wasn't, nobody would buy into it. The conservatives amongst us will always resist change and the progressives will always welcome it with open arms.
 
Upvote 0
I recently picked up a RP at a good price, and already had an adapter, being a forward thinking guy ;)
Where I notice the difference in AF is when shooting at a wideish aperture and off centre of the frame. With the RP I can shoot with impunity at f/1.8 even well off centre. I can’t reliably do this with any of my dslrs.

And on DSLRs with live view, that's able to focus when the normal focusing cannot. The writing has been on the wall for OVFs for some time.
 
Upvote 0
I recently picked up a RP at a good price, and already had an adapter, being a forward thinking guy ;)
Where I notice the difference in AF is when shooting at a wideish aperture and off centre of the frame. With the RP I can shoot with impunity at f/1.8 even well off centre. I can’t reliably do this with any of my dslrs.
That's a fair observation as DSLR AF modules tend to be less accurate off center.
 
Upvote 0
That really hasn't been my experience, but to each his own. I have stopped previewing my photos on the back screen on the R5 in favor of the EVF. It's just higher resolution and you don't have to deal with glare. As far as it looking like a VGA monitor, have you tried a modern EVF?
Does the Sony A9 count? That's probably the highest IQ EVF I've had real stick time on.
 
Upvote 0
Lets see. (1) The RF interface allows for a much faster exchange of information between the lens and camera
From what I've seen the RF interface adds pins for a serial channel for exchanging more complex data like lens corrections. Otherwise it's EF. And the EF pins/protocol would ever prove to be the upper bound on AF performance. Computing distance and moving lens elements would always be slower than the frequency at which EF signals are exchanged.

(2) The RF interface allows for the camera to supply the lens with more power (this is especially significant for larger lenses with heavy elements.)
A number of 1D bodies do this, as does the 7D mark II. Did RF provide for an even higher power limit here? Do any R bodies use it yet?

I'll puat one in the opinion bucket as there are many who sing the praise of no blackout.
The existence of frame lag under continuous shooting is not opinion, it's observable fact. The significance of frame lag is more a matter of opinion. Someone who never holds the shutter button down long enough to encounter it may indeed find mirror blackout to be worse. But photographers have complained that they can lose erratically moving subjects, and it's hard to argue that mirror blackout is worse than this.

On the R3 this may prove to be a moot point. If it can shoot at 30 fps then it can likely (?) feed the EVF at 30 fps under continuous shooting. That should be sufficient to never fall behind even if it's 'jerky' compared to 60 or 120 Hz refresh when not shooting.

Either you've not read the stories or I was opaque in my question. I was referring to the camera tracking the photographer's eye to determine what to focus on - not the camera nailing focus on an eye (a commonly talked about feature elsewhere.)
You have to be more specific since 'eye focus' can mean either one. I've had this before on an EOS 3. It's neat, it's not a game changer.

Look, I get it. You've got an EF camera plus EF lenses and you want to defend that because you're defending your own decisions to spend money on it.
No, I simply don't find mirrorless tech to be 'game changing' in a way that would render DSLRs from the last decade uncompetitive. It's simply not the same as, say, the move from film to digital.

Newer is always going to be better - if it wasn't, nobody would buy into it.
The question is whether newer leads to any real, consistent, and widespread improvements in published photography. I can look at small format work from, say, 1995 and 2005 and see the impact of digital in terms of both technical IQ and creative freedom. Likewise when comparing magazine published work from 1995 and, say, 1975 on technical IQ (the difference being in digital publishing even if the originals were captured on film). I don't expect to see those kinds of IQ or creativity gains because of EVFs or eye based AF point selection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Does the Sony A9 count? That's probably the highest IQ EVF I've had real stick time on.
When I had the Sony A9 and A7RIV, I noticed a tremendous difference in clarity and quality between them. The Sony A9 viewfinder is 3,686,400 Dot, whereas the Sony A7RIV is 5,760,000 Dot.
The Canon R5 is 5,760,000 Dot, and again much noticeably improved over the Sony A9.

If you're genuinely curious about whether EVFs have improved, try spending some time using a camera with one of the newer EVFs and see for yourself. The Sony A1's 9,437,184 Dot viewfinder sounds very impressive. I have not looked through it personally yet.

To me, the EVF quality improvements between 3.7 million and 5.8 million dots are highly noticeable and make the R5 much easier to use. In fact, the 3,690,000 Dot viewfinder on the R6 is the only thing that kept me from getting one as a second body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Yes and no. EVF lets you preview exposure and color balance, and it's close enough to make meaningful decisions about those things. But it is by far the worst preview available between EVF, rear screen, home monitor, and the real scene (OVF). Color, contrast, and dynamic range are all way off. I have yet to see an EVF that didn't feel like a VGA monitor from the 90s. I can also still perceive some pixelization, though that varies by user.

If an EVF looked like my 4k calibrated monitor or even a good rear screen I could perhaps jump without missing an OVF. That's not the case right now.
Except that the preview would still be of what the JPEG would look like if you were shooting JPEGs, not how the Raw file will come up in Lightroom or ACR before you start twiddling, wouldn't it?
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
When I had the Sony A9 and A7RIV, I noticed a tremendous difference in clarity and quality between them. The Sony A9 viewfinder is 3,686,400 Dot, whereas the Sony A7RIV is 5,760,000 Dot.
The Canon R5 is 5,760,000 Dot, and again much noticeably improved over the Sony A9.

If you're genuinely curious about whether EVFs have improved, try spending some time using a camera with one of the newer EVFs and see for yourself. The Sony A1's 9,437,184 Dot viewfinder sounds very impressive. I have not looked through it personally yet.

To me, the EVF quality improvements between 3.7 million and 5.8 million dots are highly noticeable and make the R5 much easier to use. In fact, the 3,690,000 Dot viewfinder on the R6 is the only thing that kept me from getting one as a second body.
While I can perceive some graininess or pixelization, EVF resolution isn't my main issue by a long shot. Side note: I hate that the industry uses "dots" to make EVFs sound extremely high resolution. Divide by 3 to get the true resolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
While I can perceive some graininess or pixelization, EVF resolution isn't my main issue by a long shot. Side note: I hate that the industry uses "dots" to make EVFs sound extremely high resolution. Divide by 3 to get the true resolution.
I agree. It would be better to have real resolution. The R5 EVF is around 1600x1200 which is about 1080p, so true not 4K (hardly VGA though). I think the A1's EVF equates to roughly a QuadHD. Both are more than acceptable for viewing an image.
 
Upvote 0
While I can perceive some graininess or pixelization, EVF resolution isn't my main issue by a long shot. Side note: I hate that the industry uses "dots" to make EVFs sound extremely high resolution. Divide by 3 to get the true resolution.
Really? Measuring the EVF or back LCD in "dots" is exactly what those sensors are. Maybe you'd rather they call them "pixels" and use the same number (not divide by 3)? That would be what they're doing with the (Bayer) sensor! The fact that they interpolate sensor dots via algorithms into "marketing called pixels" doesn't change the fact that the sensor is actually "dots" and not "pixels". So, the fact that the marketing department used the "honest" term for EVF & back LCD is what is upsetting you? And for the record, even dividing by 3 and calling it a "pixel" is not what the EVF, LCD, or sensor is. They don't have "pixel" sensors or emitters. All three are "dots", and that's the only "honest" term for all 3 of them.
 
Upvote 0
You might not see the difference, but the photo from a helicopter with the photographer behind it would be "real", because he was really there.

With an EVF you are also behind the camera, but while you are looking through your viewfinder, you do not see reality any more.

Of course what our eyes see isn't reality either. Colours to not really exist. They are just a way for our brain to visualize some wavelenghts of light. The fact that the world in reality is dark, is quite creepy. However light going directly into our eyes after getting reflected from objects is the closest we can get to "reality".
Some serious philosophising going on here. Either you can see the reality or you can't. Shooting from a helicopter with a EVF doesn't negate the reality of the photographer. Shooting from a remote screen on a drone doesn't negate the experience or their perception of reality at the time. In either case, and as you say, you can't see the difference in the final result and I don't believe that the final result is impacted by the "reality" of the photographer looking through a OVF.
 
Upvote 0
Really? Measuring the EVF or back LCD in "dots" is exactly what those sensors are. Maybe you'd rather they call them "pixels" and use the same number
A screen pixel would be composed of three 'dots' (RGB). They switched to reporting dots for camera screens and EVFs for pure marketing reasons to make the screens sound higher resolution than they really are.

That would be what they're doing with the (Bayer) sensor!
No it is not.

the sensor is actually "dots" and not "pixels".
The final output from a sensor has one full RGB pixel per sensor pixel with the additional color information derived from neighboring pixels. This is distinctly different from camera screens where the reported number of dots leads a consumer to believe the screen is comparable to a monitor of a particular class when in fact it's comparable to a much lower resolution monitor. It has no relationship to Bayer what so ever. Your EVF/rear screen shows a fully demosaiced JPEG.
 
Upvote 0
From what I've seen the RF interface adds pins for a serial channel for exchanging more complex data like lens corrections. Otherwise it's EF. And the EF pins/protocol would ever prove to be the upper bound on AF performance. Computing distance and moving lens elements would always be slower than the frequency at which EF signals are exchanged.

To cut a long story short, you've convinced that EF and optical is better and will argue until death that you're right. You're a few years late with this perspective and your arguments are similarly dated. It's 2021, not 2015.

If you want the truth behind the questions in your response, I'm sure you know how to use Google.

The world is moving on, EVF and mirrorless is the future. That train has left the station and there's no going back. Innovation will see that EVF cameras are just as good, if not better, than OVF. Of course there will be some folks that are wedded to their DSLRs, just like there are some that are wedded to film.

There are multiple threads here with you about EVFs and mirrorless. I would encourage you to step back for a few days and come back. This thread does not look like how you imagine it does.
 
Upvote 0
A screen pixel would be composed of three 'dots' (RGB). They switched to reporting dots for camera screens and EVFs for pure marketing reasons to make the screens sound higher resolution than they really are.


No it is not.


The final output from a sensor has one full RGB pixel per sensor pixel with the additional color information derived from neighboring pixels. This is distinctly different from camera screens where the reported number of dots leads a consumer to believe the screen is comparable to a monitor of a particular class when in fact it's comparable to a much lower resolution monitor. It has no relationship to Bayer what so ever. Your EVF/rear screen shows a fully demosaiced JPEG.
The EVF and LCD screen are physically composed of single color dots, not pixels. If you want to divide the number of dots by three and call it a pixel, feel free to.

The commonly used Bayer sensor is composed of single color receptors, which are single color sensing dots. For every 2 green and 1 red and blue dot the marketing department chooses to call them all "pixels", implying that all 4 dots each have red, green, and blue. They do not. The fact that subsequent software interpolates neighboring pixels together to create additional estimated color values and provide 3 colors per dot on output does not mean that the sensor actually sensed 3 colors per dot - it did not. The only camera sensor that actually has each dot sense all 3 colors is the Foveon sensor from Sigma, which has 3 vertical sensing layers per dot. The camera companies with Bayer sensors call a 20MDot sensor a 20MPixel sensor to increase sales. If they chose to further use software to upres a 20MDot(declared 20MPixel) sensor by 2x2 then they could present you with a 80MPixel file from the sensor and call it a 80MPixel camera - but it's still not. Most of the CR members here probably already know this topic and would say it's old news and not worth arguing over. I agree with that. You (and much of the public) can feel free to think a 20MDot sensor is really 20MPixels - enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0